Template talk:Infobox automobile/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Oppose simplification

I disagree with the removal of these information fields, proposed for the automobile template and already implemented at the motorcycle infobox template.

Per the infoboxes for countries (eg Austria), and towns (eg Ankara), and chemicals (eg ammonia), and more, there doesn't seem to be any need or requirement to cut out information for length purposes. Those infoboxes also contain information that is not reiterated within the article bodies.

Infoboxes are perfectly suited to displaying this type of content, and I strongly believe these technical details benefit the reader, to be easily found and compared between articles (rather than having to hunt through prose, or find a table lower down the page). See also WP:NOTPAPER.

For these reasons and more, I strongly suggest reinstating the deleted material, and not deleting any more fields until wider input has been sought. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal - we will not seek "wider input" until enough people will support you. The WikiProject is open to everybody, and more often than not discussions are driven by one-time "members" with an axe to grind, so I don't see how our input is narrow. Anybody interested can join the WikiProject and/or our discussions, and I don't see how they don't. Infoboxes are not suited for displaying information which may vary significantly for subjects covered by one infobox, and which needs further explanation for the reader to see how it pertains to the subject. I also don't see how it is proper to shoehorn everything in the infobox rather than talk about it in prose or perhaps institute a datasheet/table. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal. The fields are not necessarily being removed for length purposes, but because they fail to meet the guidelines for infoboxes. swaq 14:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal. Seems to me a clear consensus is already being reached and I agree with it. Roguegeek (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And since it was brought up, please head over here because we are looking for more feedback on the same issue, but dealing with the motorcycle infobox instead. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment- WP:IBX has been brought up several times, yet I have read it over and over again and I have yet to see anything that says these infoboxes are "wrong." --Sable232 (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it might depend on your interpretation of "summary or overview information". I read that to mean information that gives a high level view and doesn't go into detail. swaq 19:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case, "summary or overview" is whatever this WikiProject deems it to be. WP:IBX alone, then, is not valid reasoning in my opinion. --Sable232 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment My main concern, is the loss of information. Perhaps someone could request a bot's assistance, to move information that is currently in the infoboxes into a new specs table? (it should all be a standard format, and hence easily extractable). Or at least add some details to the infobox doc-page, to explain that specifications should be in a table, and point to a good example (eg. Is Honda CB600F#Specifications the way we're meant to do it? or is that likely to be deleted by an overenthusiastic cleanup next month?). I'm simply saying that standards are good, and infoboxes shouldn't be trashed until there is a replacement strategy for a new standard. Information such as that found in the infobox for Honda PC50, just isn't available anywhere else on the web (in English).
  (This isn't my area of knowledge, I'm trying to help a new editor find his way on the Wiki, and he happened to start with motorcycles. Also, this may not be relevant to the automobile infobox, it was just where the Roguegeek's edit summary pointed to; and a grumpy outsider's opinion is occasionally useful :) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Specifications lists like the one you found were, as I recall, discussed once before and the agreement was that they weren't to be added as we are not a shop manual. --Sable232 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See the featured articles Mini Moke, and Holden VE Commodore (full infobox, and separate powertrain specs table) and the related B-17 Flying Fortress#Specifications (B-17G), or the equally useful/informative {{Infobox Automobile generation}} template in eg MINI (BMW)#Models. I can understand parts-lists and suchlike being excluded because "we are not a shop manual", but excluding basic specifications seems unhelpful. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. I have already made a few comments, and I have yet to see valid reasoning in support of removal. I will add more to my statement when I can. --Sable232 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose removal I dont see any reason to reduce or change the infobox, it is good now --— Typ932^{T | C}  18:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose removal per Sable232 (talk · contribs) —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - If it benefits the reader, I see no reason why to remove the fields. Even the manual of style authorizes the use of fields that are sometimes empty as long as they are not always empty and I believe that for many of the specifications a reliable source can be found and thus, it is more likely to not be empty eventually than to actually be. -- Loukinho (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Fields to include

Determine which fields to include in the automobile infobox. See proposal for simplification and request to add fuel economy.

I don't see why the Math/Science folks are any more qualified to debate this than the members of WikiProject Automobile. There are plenty of us - and we are all reasonably expert in the subject area. Hence, this RfC is a waste of time and provides no improvement in the debate we're already having.

IMHO, we need to stand back a way from the problem. Here is what I think we should do - in a spirit of cooperation:

1. Take a good long look at all of the data fields that go into a typical car specification sheet from the manufacturer - plus all of the fields we currently have - plus any more we can think of...that'll be a L-O-N-G list of every conceivable kind of data that could go into the infobox. It'll be long - but it'll be comprehensive. We can do this without rancor because we're not asking people to exclude anything at this stage.
2. Then, we should decide how many lines of data we regard as the limit for a reasonable infobox - find consensus. That should be possible without having to take sides about MPG or Curb weight or whatever your personal favorite happens to be. It's a debate about style in the abstract. Let's call this agreed-upon number of entries "N".
3. Next we agree on a way to score the answers to the next step which is to...
4. ...Ask every member of the Wikiproject to pick the N most important things from the list in step (1) - rating them in order from 1 to N...where 1 is the most important and N is the least.
5. Finally, we do a brainless statistical thing according to the rules we've already agreed in step (3) to determine which N items were most important to the most people.

The result of this process should not be too contentious. The majority of the N things should be important to most people - any serious dispute about the resulting infobox should be down in the least relevent couple of things...which ought to be an easy debate because the majority will agree on the process - even if they have minor qualms about the outcome. And for that we can swallow our pride and achieve consensus in the knowledge that we can accept that we did it fairly.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I did an RfC because I didn't think this was reaching consensus. I chose the Math/Science[/Technology] one because it seemed to be the closest fit. swaq 14:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This has to be one of the stupidest discussions I have ever seen. If you want a parameter for cupholders (number of cupholders) or available as a convertible or whatever, it certainly isn't going to affect anyone else. Put in whatever parameters you want. It doesn't mean that anyone has to use them. I take it someone from the auto industry is holding the template hostage? Narnia205 (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Kerb/curb weight and dry weight?

Shouldn't there be fields for both or either? —Mr. Grim Reaper at 06:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Fields for electic cars

I want to know if the following fields can be added for electric cars.

• traction motor=
• charger=
• charging connector=
• charge time=
• pack voltage=
• battery type=
• battery location=
• maximum speed=
• range

I notice that maximum speed is not available as such in the existing template, but in case of an electric car it becomes pertinant. Well mostly because their top speeds are not really top. This is in connection to the electric car REVA--PremKudva^Talk 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Are all of these really necessary? Some strike me as trivial, and others redundant (isn't "range" already covered by "electric range"?). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

These should be discussed in the article. We don't need additional fields that will only be used by electric cars. swaq 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about these, maybe some own template to electric cars? --— Typ932^{T | C}  17:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes more sense to me. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't to me. That would be substantial duplication of effort. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Title

The title looks a bit strange floating above the infobox. Is there any way to bring it back into the box with a slight background color, like it used to be? --Sable232 (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxen are gradually moving towards using this style. It is the recommended way of adding a header to a table. The slight background colour has no semantic value, and templates are not meant to use colour without good reason. Given that all the templates in category:Automotive infobox templates are now consistent, it would be a shame to have to regress based on an individual aeshetic quirk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetics is important in good perception of information contained in the infobox. The current layout is confusing. Why is the entire infobox shaded and inside a box, but the title not so? It is harder to discern whether the title pertains to the box or is a separate element. I'd expect a header to be an integral part of the infobox, in most applications I can think of it is so. I would consider the exclusion of the title to be an "individual aesthetic quirk", with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And I expect the opposite - that the header be clearly separated from the content. If there is consensus across the project, I'm happy to make the change required to put the title inside the table (which simply requires changing the title from a title attribute to an above) across all relevant infoboxen, however. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to have only this infobox changed, I just placed the discussion here since this seems to be the most-travelled talk page. --Sable232 (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes need to be kept standardized and, currently, they are. No changes should be made in my opinion unless the overall guidelines (not just Automobile WP guidelines) are revised. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe my argument applies to ALL infoboxes, the floating titles are ugly and confusing. But it is easier to change it for one project than to try to find consensus accross the whole WP. Anybody supports my motion to reinclude the title in the infobox? PrinceGloria (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would one project wish to deliberately deviate from the established norms of the rest of the encyclopedia? Rather than carving out individual fiefdoms, WikiProjects should be working together with one another wherever possible. Right now, the automobile infobox matches the style of the motor racing infobox. That the two happen to be in separate WikiProjects (drawn up on an arbitrary basis) need not concern a reader at all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Because we need to repair Wikipedia from the ground up. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Standardized? I look at two major Infoboxes, and I see they use colorization; Infobox musical artist and Template:Infobox Military Conflict. Perhaps we could even vary the color used based on the year of the car, year rage or era, or fuel type? (That's not necessary at all, and would probably get out of hand, but nevertheless.) It make sit easier to scan through and looks better. And aesthetics does play an important role. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 23:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like counterarguments, there are plenty of high-profile infoboxen which use the same styling as this one. The template documentation specifically says that colour should follow an obvious and defined scheme, so varying it by manufacturer et cetera for the sake of having a colour band is therefore obviously not appropriate. {{infobox military conflict}} uses a specific colour because the Military WikiProject has a consistently-defined style for every one of its templates; that isn't the case here, though if it were then that would be fine. And aesthetics are personal - there is plenty of reason to assume, given the trend of infoboxen gradually losing their idiosyncratic personal styling over the years, that the current styling of this box is the preferred one for a majority of editors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of standardisation, the "infoboxen" thing was cute and clever...once. The English plural of "box" is "boxes". —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why WikiProject Automobiles doesn't adopt a standardized color. Personally, I'd like to see this WikiProject organized to the same level as WikiProject Military history, or others. Though, maybe we should bring that up in the Project's talk page. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The best reason is that WikiProjects are entirely artificial constructs and that they shouldn't be set up as their own private little fiefdoms with their own rules unless there's some significant benefit or legacy involved in doing so. Setting up such a set of rules after the fact doesn't serve any benefit, and is liable to confuse readers who wonder why infobox templates arbitrarily deviate in style from one another. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I find that ridiculous. Can you honestly tell me any reader will be "confused" because there is color in an area? It's not like I'm suggesting we add decorations, Flash, etc. It actually makes it easer for the reader. To be honest, the automobile Infobox is the only Infobox I've seen without color or a inside title for a long while. Also, I think we should add a field for a caption for the image. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 01:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a caption field. Thanks. Again, I dispute that there is a significant readability advantage to colour stripes in what is really a very simple template design: once upon a time cell borders were all the rage in infobox templates for the same reason, and they're mostly gone too these days. And yes, I do believe that arbitrary colouring is confusing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And I have reverted your edit because there's no consensus at this time. From what I count, 4 people are for it and 3 are against it.--Flash176 (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that there is significant opposition there to an optional attribute, but fair enough. Thanks for pointing to the discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

May we get back to the topic at hand?

Obviously there are projects who have their infobox headings as part of the infobox, and I fail to see why we cannot do likewise. Chris, I do not see why you're treating this like we're trying to break away from Wikipedia or something like that. It looks like the consensus leaning among this project is that the previous design should be restored on Infobox Automobile and it's derivatives (engine, platform, etc.). --Sable232 (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sable, how do you derive a consensus from 3 people for and 2 against? Make that 3 against, because I see no reason to change from the current form. As long as the page is setup properly and the infoboxes are put in their proper sections instead of being stacked like they are on Chevrolet Corvette C4, there should be no confusion. Even when stacked like they are in my example, I have a hard time believing they're that confusing.--Flash176 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I said among this project, and Roguegeek was the only project member opposed (at the time). --Sable232 (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to be careful about making comments about "consensus" based on single threads less than a week old. Consensus is a group feeling which is generated over time - it isn't a head count involving a half-dozen "votes". I think the comment made by User:DeLarge on the subject back in August does an excellent job of explaining the original rationale, and since then there still doesn't seem to be any particularly strong counterargument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And there has yet to be a sufficient argument as to why it was changed in the first place (excluding "standardization" but that's been shown to be a moot point anyway). This isn't about the template coding changes, which is what it seems to me like DeLarge was mostly referring to. The argument that an editor is going to get confused because the infobox header is inside the infobox rather than outside it doesn't hold water. --Sable232 (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, it hasn't been shown to be a "moot point": the existence of counterexamples does not negate the goal of increasing standardisation; it simply indicates that the job isn't complete yet. I have not argued that readers will be "confused" by the layout; rather, that has been advanced by those who wish to change the styling. I do not believe that readers will be "confused" by the use of a perfectly standard wikitable-style title rather than a greyish bar, either. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how robotic you sound. The title located inside just looks better, more organized, and professional. It gives a more consistent look with other Infoboxes. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 22:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

aka field usage

The template page presently stipulates that the aka field is for other names of the car/automobile in different markets. Certainly that's an unquestionably valid use of the field — Subaru Forester and Chevrolet Forester, Chevrolet Cavalier and Toyota Cavalier, Dodge Spirit and Chrysler Saratoga, etc. — but why do we limit it to other names used in other markets? Within individual markets, there are many badge-engineered vehicles differing from each other only in make/model name and minor cosmetics. It is difficult to argue, for example, that the Plymouth Acclaim and Dodge Spirit are anything but akas of each other. Every last part interchanges directly, except for the name badges. The grilles and trim strips and taillamps are slightly different in appearance, but otherwise identical. These two cars aren't just "related", they are practically identical and therefore ought to be reciprocally referred as aka. The same goes for Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volaré, for Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique, for Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis, for Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable, for Mitsubishi Precis and Hyundai Excel, for Chevrolet Metro and Pontiac Firefly, for Chevrolet Caprice and a dozen other practically identical GM B-body cars, arguably for Geo Prizm and Toyota Corolla, probably for Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix, etc.

Obviously the standard of identicality will not always be perfectly clear; in some cases it'll be debatable (does the fact that the Chevrolet Caprice used a Chevrolet-made 305 cu in (5.0 L) V8 and the practically identical Pontiac Parisienne used an Olds 307 cu in (5.0 L) V8 mean they're no longer aka of each other?) but in many cases it's quite clear, and it seems to me this infobox stipulation as presently written is unnecessarily and improperly restrictive. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree most strongly. The Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5 are the same car with different logos, while the Opel Astra merely shares the same platform. The fact that the Chevrolet is sold in the same market as the Pontiac doesn't make it any less misleading to list the Coblat in 'Related' on the G5's page along with the Astra, rather than putting it in 'Also called'. Likewise, the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe are the same car in all but appearance and factory of origin, whereas the Corolla is more distantly related. David Arthur (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I just changed that on the Matrix, I do agree with you. The only reason I didn't bring it up here was I figured I had started enough topics lately. :)--Flash176 (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The last thing we need is an "aka" field a metre long. "aka" seemed to be used for cases where there were multiple nameplates in a single article. "Related" was sufficient for a series of similar cars with their own articles. I think it should stay that way. --Sable232 (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Aka field should be used for same car with different name, I think we should change so that related field is used only for cars using same platform, not for "cars which share components" this will cover too much different cars --— Typ932^{T |C}  20:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sable232, I'm not sure I follow your logic here. Any given vehicle would be listed in the "aka" field or in the "related" field, not both. There's nothing in this discussion that would tend to lengthen the infobox, we're just discussing which field should contain which types of listings. Am I misunderstanding your objection?

Typ932, I do agree the stipulation for the "related" field is potentially too broad, but we're dealing with a bit of a moving target here. On the one hand, all Hondas are related. On the other hand, just because you can get the same engine in a Civic as in an Accord (I don't know this to be true, I'm just making up an example) doesn't mean the two models are notably related. Consider the Chrysler products of the late '80s to mid '90s: they were virtually all K-car derivatives. Different body panels, a few different wheelbases, different equipment levels, and a different mix of engine availability, but underneath they were all highly commonised on the K-platform. Nevertheless, I don't think anyone reasonable would argue that the Dodge Dynasty should be listed as "related" to the Plymouth Sundance, but I'll bet you see my point: it's tough to nail down a precise level of commonality above which a vehicle is eligible for listing in the "related" field. We have to strike an appropriate balance for a general definition, and deal with individual cases individually. I think the current "cars which share components" wording is too broad, but I don't think your "cars built on the same platform" suggestion adequately addresses the issue.

How about something like Cars built on the same platform and/or substantially sharing the same components? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I might've misunderstood what you were saying at first... and I'm not sure what I wrote makes all that much sense, so let's try again:

I think the "aka" field should be for alternate names for the vehicle the article is about. (So, for example, on Ford Pinto the "aka" field says Mercury Bobcat since there is no Bobcat article.) The "related" field will cover a car's "platform-mates," that is, the ones for which we have articles. "aka" would also be used for, say, Second-generation Ford Mustang, as it's usually called Mustang II. --Sable232 (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems as if we are in agreement on your first point: the aka field should be for alternate names for the subject of the article. So all my examples above would belong in aka. However, I do not agree that the criterion should be whether or not there is a separate article for the a-k-a vehicle. Whether there's to be a separate article or a combined one for substantially similar vehicles is decided on a case-by-case basis, and it is unlikely there'd be the political and encyclopædic will to have uniform provisions on the matter. That being the case, I do not agree with your proposal to replace one spurious restriction ("other names of the car/automobile in different markets") with another spurious restriction ("other names of the car/automobile for which no separate article exists").

Your points about the related field have validity and are worth discussing, but let's focus on one issue at a time rather than getting distracted and bogged down trying to tackle multiple issues (which usually guarantees no consensus). Right now, we're talking about the aka field. Regardless of the presence or absence of an article about an a-k-a vehicle, the question at hand here is whether or not it is OK to put such differently-named, substantially-identical vehicles in the aka field even if the two vehicles are from the same market. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue I see with that is, what defines how closely related two cars have to be to be "also known as" each other? Would anyone say the Chevrolet Monte Carlo is also known as the Pontiac Grand Prix (and vice versa)? Or that the Oldsmobile Cutlass is also known as the Buick Regal (or Century, depending on year and trim level)? The 2008 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable share nearly everything, but the 1986 models of each car share no body panels, have completely different dashboards, different door panels, seats, etc. It seems like there would end up being an arbitrary line drawn to separate things. --Sable232 (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that the Chevrolet is also known as a Pontiac, and vice versa (in some cases, like the Cobalt and G5, I think it might be more productive to merge the articles, but that's another issue). Similarly, the Ford Taurus is sold as the Mercury Sable, even though that name had previously been used for a different car. The infobox is just a quick concatenation of the important details; the subtler points of history can be handled quite adequately by the article text.

I agree with Scheinwerfermann that the existence of separate articles is useless, since it tends to be entirely arbitrary. For example, Australia's Holden Commodore is exported to the Middle East as the Chevrolet Lumina, and to North America as the Pontiac G8. The Chevrolet Lumina article merely informs readers that the most recent Lumina is a rebadged Holden, and directs them to that article for more information; the Pontiac G8, on the other hand, has a lengthy article of its own. This is, I suspect, mostly a sign of the importance that Americans ascribe to cars sold by their domestic manufacturers, given the absence of any radical difference in the car itself.

'Also called' to me implies all cars which differ only in name, or in aesthetic and trim-line details. Adding an additional restriction such as 'in different markets' seems counterproductive to our goal of informing the reader. 'Related' can be saved for those cars which have substantial commonality, but also significant differences. David Arthur (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sable232, I think you are worrying about a crisis or conundrum that we don't actually have here. We don't need a uniform answer (or "line", as you say, arbitrary or otherwise) that applies rigidly to every case. The question of appropriate placement of aka and/or related cars calls for general guidelines with the lattitude to allow case-by-case decisions. Take the Taurus/Sable example you raise, for instance. Through most of its life, those two cars were practically identical. The first few years, they didn't share m/any exterior body parts, but this amounted to Ford having done an extensive/expensive badge engineering job (extending the cosmetic differences to exterior sheet metal, not just grille and taillamp and trim type of stuff) rather than putting out two differently-engineered cars with substantial differences beyond cosmetics. The details can easily (and best) be covered in the article text.

But more than that — again — the question at hand is whether practically identical cars should be allowed in the aka field, even if they are in the same market. So far it looks like the consensus is leaning towards "yes". I don't think you are acting in bad faith, but I do wonder why you are so intently commenting on everything except the question at hand...could you please take a moment and think about the simple question of whether the "other markets" restriction should be there? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann, I'm trying to explain why my response is "no." I think there should be some kind of restriction, otherwise all we're doing is moving things from "related" to "aka" for no reason other than to make it appear that every car on a given platform is a carbon copy of the other (at any rate, that's what I'm seeing).

David Arthur, for a good while the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix shared nothing but the frame, floorpans, windshield and roofline.

I can guarantee that the average WP reader is not going to accept that the Monte Carlo was also called Pontiac Grand Prix, because it wasn't. They were related closely enough that one can tell by looking at the two, but they were certainly not carbon copies of each other. --Sable232 (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please not try to fix what ain't broke? The system works pretty well now - the aka field is for different names of the same vehicle, as covered in the article (regardless of the fact that the name is question might have been used on other vehicles, not covered in the article - as in the case of Chevrolet Lumina name used for Holden Commodore VT onwards). I would say the Mercuries are for the most part "akas" of Fords - didn't know about the fact that the Sable was so different from the Taurus originally, they look the same but for minor details to a layman's eye...

As concerns related, I believe we should take the "either platform or related" approach. It is pretty obvious the car is automatically related to all vehicles it shares the platform with, so listing one third of Honda's models when filling in the "related" field for a recent Honda Accord generation is rather superfluous. I'd reserve that field for cases not within the platform system for this or other reason - like the case of Matra Rancho and Simca 1100. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

'aka' definitely needs to be more than 'sharing a platform', but that isn't what's being proposed here. If you look at Pontiac G5, you'll see that the article suggests that the G5 has the same degree of commonality with both the Chevrolet Cobalt and the Opel Astra, which clearly isn't the case; the Cobalt and the G5 are identical cars apart from the logo and grille, while the Astra merely shares the same platform. Logically, the G5's page should list the Cobalt under 'aka' and the Astra under 'related', but if I were to do this at the moment, someone else would revert it because this template lists the arbitrary restriction that 'aka' should, for some reason that isn't made clear, be used only for cars sold in different markets.

Sable232: Sorry, I misunderstood your example, not knowing the particular cars in question - your 'and vice versa' made me think it was a question of which car was related to which. David Arthur (talk)

PrinceGloria, you write aka field is for different names of the same vehicle, and I completely agree with you. So does everyone else in this discussion, except for Sable232, who for some reason does not want to weigh in on the question at hand. We appear to have broad and strong consensus that we can remove the spurious ...in different markets restriction from the aka field descriptor. Unless there's any serious, thoughtful objection, I'll go ahead and do so. Then we can move on to discussing other matters, like the related field Sable232 is keen to refine. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess my only question if we change the wording is what's considered the same vehicle? Does it need to share the same sheetmetal, like the GMC Sierra/Chevy Silverado, or is it ok to have different sheetmetal if everything else is the same? i.e. Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe Just trying to avoid any potential confusion later on.--Flash176 (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question, but neither it nor its answer is affected by the presence or absence of ...used in other markets in the stipulation for use of the aka field. As I've said before, I don't think there's any practicable way to define a uniform standard for what constitutes identicality for the purposes of the aka field. Wherever we would draw such a line, there would be a vehicle just on the other side of the line for which a cogent and persuasive aka case could be made. The Matrix/Vibe question you raise seems to fit in with the 1st-generation Taurus/Sable situation: Everyone knows and refers to them as twins; nobody says "But wait a minute, they use different door sheet metal!". —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not affected by that stipulation, but I'm sure someone's going to bring this up eventually. Personally, I think we should just use common sense and our own judgment, but I know others here will object.--Flash176 (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

To me, different sheetmetal means "related", not "aka". The Vibe and Matrix are not "aka", though they do share as much as possible underneath, and even inside. I do know this whole discussion is just an elaborate attempt at fending off the imminent Taurus-Sable merge, but to me, the Taurus and Sable were akas from day one, regardless of the amount of sheetmetal different. It seems to be a bit of non-exact science here, but let's just go by what we used to. Oh, and please do remove this "in different markets" bit, it is unnecessairly complicting. The Dodge Caravan is as much a Chrysler Voyager as it is a Chrysler Town & Country (and vice versa). Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

PrinceGloria, you're contradicting yourself. You say that the Taurus/Sable have been AKA from the start, even when they had different sheetmetal, yet you say the Matrix/Vibe are only related.

Also, I think your statement about "knowing this whole discussion is just an elaborate attempt at fending off the imminent Taurus-Sable merge" is a bit dramatic. Especially since this discussion was started by Scheinwerfermann because I reverted his making the Matrix an AKA of the Vibe due to the wording of the convention.--Flash176 (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If not for the Sable-Taurus thing, I believe we would've done much earlier, but that's just me ;) Anyhoo, I don't know how much effort did Dearborn put into it, the Taurus and Sable do look the same to me. I even think the "ovoid" generation is more differentiated than the original one, but still - it is pretty obvious they ARE the same car. As concerns Matrix and Vibe, I wasn't aware of that until I read about it. That is what I mean. Can't pull out blueprints and check how much sheetmetal is shared... PrinceGloria (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand where you're coming from. I just now looked at the first generation Taurus/Sable, and I do agree with you that they've been the same from the start. They have slightly different front and rear ends, but everything else is the same, save for the Taurus having a slight crease just below the belt line. As for the Matrix/Vibe, they do use completely different sheetmetal, but everything else on them is identical (interior, drivetrain, chassis dimensions). That's why I used them as an example, because I think we need a guideline as to where we draw the line between AKA and related.--Flash176 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How about we simplify it like this - if a model is merged into another model's article, it is an AKA. If it is a separate article, it is related. Thus, none of the models in the AKA section would have links, and all of the Related models should. Likewise, a new model shouldn't be added to either section until it has been mentioned in the current article or a new article is made for it. And yes, if an article is created for an "aka" model, it would be moved to "related".

This moves the discussion over to "what gets merged and what doesn't?". We can discuss the merge proposals based on how much unique info there is for the similar models. Some "badge engineered" models may warrant separate articles because of the history of those models and unique trim lines; others may not have enough for a new article.

When it comes down to it, I am against having the "aka" section altogether, because it opens up subjective judgment of how "related" one car is to another. Yes, we could define it as "the same car sold in another market where the original market is not sold", but that doesn't specify how similar to the original car it has to be. If we do want two levels of related, then let's make it completely objective - one level based on body style (e.g. 4 door sedan) and another based on the same platform (which can be used for 2-dr, 4-dr, 5-dr, etc.). --Vossanova ^o< 16:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the first paragraph. This is how it should be.

As concerns the second, I would be wary about arguing that a model "warrants an article" because of "unique trim lines". If there is so much unique content (which is encyclopedic and all) that the necessary repetition is less of a problem than trying to cover both models in one article, it is obvious that the article should be split. I cannot think of an example now, for the most part North American model articles are rather good merger candidates (case in point - Chrysler minivan articles are 80% repeating each other).

I absolutely do not afee with the third paragraph... Now come on, this will always be a bit of a gray area, but let's be practical about it. There is no point splitting the hair in two. As the last resort, we can always talk controversial cases over, this project is known for heated discussions, but also for eventually coming to good solutions. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Vossanova's first paragraph: that's exactly what I've been trying to say. --Sable232 (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

September 23

PrinceGloria, you write I do know this whole discussion is just an elaborate attempt at fending off the imminent Taurus-Sable merge. In fact, you "know" no such thing; you're assuming, and incorrectly at that. As Flash176 more or less correctly asserted, I started this discussion after seeing his change to the Vibe/Matrix. I didn't start it because I think he's wrong, or because I think I'm right. I started it because I saw the aka stipulation contained a spurious restriction. That's all. I have no stake or interest (or opinion, at this point) in a Taurus-Sable merge, so I would ask that you please tone down the shrill reproaches a couple of notches, remember to mind your faith and avoid jumping to conclusions. Thanks in advance.

There've been perpetual & periodic merge/no-merge debates over particular articles on here since forever, and they're not likely to go away any time soon. Chrysler minivans are an excellent example somebody already mentioned, and while I can't recall ever having looked at Mercury Sable, I bet Taurus/Sable is another. But it's not within the scope of this present discussion, eh?

Vossanova, your suggestion if a model is merged into another model's article, it is an AKA. If it is a separate article, it is related might have merit, though I'm not sure it solves the problem without introducing new ones. Consider the Dodge Dart, which was sold in Canada, Argentina, and South Africa as the Chrysler Valiant in certain years. Same sheet metal, same interior, same everything except badges and trim (and RHD instead of LHD in South Africa). There's a Chrysler Valiant article which presently deals with the Australian Chrysler Valiants and is very nearly silent on the subject of South Africa, Canada, or Argentina. That's a separate issue; there were numerous different cars sold as Chrysler Valiants in many countries around the world. The point relevant to this discussion is that your suggestion creates another "Where's the line?" question, this time centred around what content goes in which article(s). Dodge Darts were badged as Chrysler Valiants, so clearly "Chrysler Valiant" belongs in the aka field of Dodge Dart. Okay, now what do we do from there? Expand the Dodge Dart article with an international section that discusses the Valiant-badged Darts? Link to the existing Canada section of Plymouth Valiant and to a (yet to be written) expansion of Chrysler Valiant? Both? I don't see how your suggestion addresses such a situation as this; would you please elaborate? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it works to define this by whether the articles are merged or not. Take, for example, the Holden Barina. It has always been a rebadged vehicle from another manufacturer: first a Suzuki, then an Opel, and now a Daewoo. There needs to be a Barina article to explain this succession — it can't just be redirected to one of the three, because that would fail to cover the other two — but it would be simply inaccurate to deny that the Daewoo Kalos is 'also called' the Barina, or that the Opel Corsa used to be.

The field, as it is presented to the ultimate reader, is labelled 'also called'. I don't think it's at all productive to have any further conditions on its use beyond what the reader sees, whether they have to do with different markets or with article organisation. I see that Scheinwerfermann has edited the field's description to read simply 'other names of the subject car/automobile', and am in full agreement with this change. David Arthur (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with David Arthur. I think that merging articles for AKA would be confusing and do more harm than good. "Other names of the subject car/automobile" is a good start, but I think we need to stipulate the difference between the AKA and Related fields. For AKA, should the cars share most sheetmetal and body lines, such as the Chevy Silverado/GMC Sierra or is it ok to have different sheetmetal as long as everything else is the same (interior, drivetrain, chassis) as on the Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe?--Flash176 (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to set up one hard and fast rule that handles all cases, but I would define it from whether the differences have any functional effect. The Matrix and Vibe, for example, look superficially different from outside (although not by that much), but if you were on board one, you'd be hard pressed to tell which version it was by anything other than the logo on the steering wheel. David Arthur (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

September 29

Been a few days since anyone's added anything. Are we going to leave it at this or are we going to be a little bit more specific than "other names of the subject car/automobile"?--Flash176 (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best to leave it as simple as that and work on a case-by-case basis. Practice will tell if we need anything more specific. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I second PrinceGloria on this one. Let's leave it be and see how it works. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Flash176 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. David Arthur (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Model years field

Discussion from Oct 27 to Oct 28

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_16#Production_year_vs._model_year_.28again.29. The consensus in this discussion was to add the Model Years field to the infobox. Most, but not all, believed that the Model Years field and Production fields should be exclusive, i.e. use only one or the other. Can someone who edits this infobox add the field, or else add to the discussion above? Thanks. --Vossanova o< 14:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I dont see any consensus should we keep voting? --— Typ932T | C  18:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Neither do I, since this is a discussion on CHANGING the status quo, I believe we haven't reached a consensus on doing so, hence nothing should be changed (until we do). PrinceGloria (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC) OK, you wrote "Use model years, whenever appropriate, preferably wikilinking to model years the first time the concept is mentioned in the article" in the discussion. So would that mean putting something like "MY" in front of the years? I tried that with Dodge Durango and Typ932 immediately reverted it, so perhaps not everyone likes that idea either. There hasn't been enough momentum to keep this discussion going, but yet I keep seeing edits back and forth on the Production field in articles like Chevrolet TrailBlazer, so a consensus needs to happen soon. --Vossanova o< 13:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Arrange voting or something in WP:CAR, this model year thing should be made clear for company car timelines also, now some uses model years and some production years... The idea is to keep all pages (nfoboxes) ,timelines etc similar in every car article--— Typ932T | C  13:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't decide by voting

Typ932, that's the second time in as many days that you've mentioned voting. Please remember that we do not decide by voting here. I have advocated having both production dates and model years fields in the infobox, with only one or the other used in each article, and I still think this is the best way forward — perhaps with additional guidance in the conventions stating that model years are to be used only until actual production begin & end dates can be found, at which point that information is placed in the production field and the model years field is blanked. Nevertheless, if we cannot attain consensus on that option, and I am forced to pick one or the other, I support production dates. It is the more precise parameter, and it supports a vaguer model-year entry ("1990-1995") until a more precise entry ("August 1989 - January 1995") can be placed. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is good way to give real opinion who wants what, overlong discussions doesnt give the answer, I think that we should use always real production dates and under that model years for Americans. Category vehicles introduced and timelines should also use real years? --— Typ932T | C  18:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What's Needed for Consensus

Polling can be useful at the start of a discussion, and periodically throughout it, to see where everyone stands. However, we all — even those of us with considerable experience — ought to please take a few moments to review the official consensus policy and the interpretive essay. Take heed: A vote/poll does not replace discussion, consensus is developed during discussion (not after it by voting/polling), and consensus does not require unanimity. That last point is significant to our present situation. PrinceGloria, might you please take a couple of minutes to consider the question and your opinion afresh, laying aside your attachment to your own preference and your built-up objections to others' views? I don't mean to suggest that you're wrong, only that when we get involved in defending our own position on an issue like this, it's really easy to lose sight of the overspanning goal — to optimise, facilitate, and expedite the betterment of the project to the maximum practicable degree. Believe me, I know; I've had that moment of realisation many times, that I'm defending my own hardened opinions and preferences rather than advocating what's best for the project. I've found it very helpful to take a new look; it's helped me to contribute to good, working consensus on such contentious issues as engine displacement expression conventions. Given the multiple attempts we've had at resolving this present issue — see here and here — all ending in a general scrum without productive results, I think an RFC might be warranted. But before I request it, let's have one more go at resolving this issue without assistance from outside the project. Can we agree that it's best for the project to have both production dates and model years fields in the infobox, using only one or the other in any given article except in special cases decided individually by consensus, and with a convention stating that the model years field is to be used only until the actual start and end production dates (month and year, plus day if available) are sourced? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Just to clarify, by "actual start and end production dates," you mean the month and perhaps day, not just the year, correct? If we put in the convention that only years are required, that would kind of put us right back where we are now.--Flash176 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Good catch. Yep, I meaan month and year, with day if available. I've edited my comment above. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Ok, I like that convention. Actual dates would be nice.--Flash176 (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I strongly oppose the stipulation that model years are only to be used until calendar dates are available. I don't recall that being discussed before, where did it come from? The entire point of this compromise was to accommodate the two different systems (at least that's what it looked like from my standpoint). I do support something along the lines of "Infobox fields for both calendar and model years are included, but only one is to be used based on the convention for that particular vehicle." --Sable232 (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC) I am of the opinion that both are equally important and should be represented in the infobox. I also feel production dates should be as specific as possible down to the day if available. roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Roguegeek, please remember the infobox is an overview. If we try to cram each and every variant of each and every permutation of each and every parameter into it, we may as well do away with the infobox altogether. Whichever one we pick — and unless I'm greatly mistaken, I think most participants here want there to be only one of these in any given infobox — the other can be elucidated in the article text. Sable232, the entire point of this exercise is not to accommodate both systems. It is to figure out how to select one system for any given infobox. your proposal for "only one is to be used based on the convention for that particular vehicle." would serve as a loophole that'll undermine this decision we're trying to make, which will set the stage for endless wars on virtually every auto article. The idea here is to pick a way to use one or the other — not both — in most every infobox. The question at hand here is "Which one shall we use, and must it be the same choice in every infobox?". It is not "Should we use this one, that one, or both?". I'd hoped we could all rise above the temptation to obstruct progress towards consensus by digging in our heels and insisting on having our own way, but since it looks like several of us are bound and determined to push our own personal preference no matter what, I'll go put in for an RFC and see if some fresh voices can lend some new perspective. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion

Hi all, I come to this discussion from RFC as a fully qualified layman. I see that this is a difficult problem. As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong) the two systems are really quite different. One is the years of production of a type of car. One is a number assigned to a model which differentiates it from earlier (and later) models and roughly corresponds to the year of first production. I see that the second is important if it is widely used - even as a layman, I may want to know this terminology, for example if I am considering buying cars. Personally I think the years it were actually produced seems more informative though. The title of the section on the infobar, production, also signals that we should use the real dates. Question: If you wrote "The first model year for the *** was 1970.". Would a north American layman understand that this might mean it was already being sold in 1969? Thehalfone (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your thoughts. The answer to the question you ask at the end of your comment is "Yes". —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Scheinwerfermann, your statement (the one three paragraphs above) is unacceptable. Insisting upon a single method for everything is pretty much the end of the debate, since I imagine you know full well that the model year system won't fly outside of North America. I don't see there being "endless wars" on every single article. I think you're looking for a problem that isn't going to exist. Basic overview is a basic overview. Most readers in North America couldn't care less if a 1991 car was introduced in January 1990, September 1990, or January 1991. If the information is available there's plenty of space to explain that in prose. Thehalfone, the answer to your question is "no." If the first model year was 1970, that doesn't automatically mean production started the year before. The 1964 Barracuda was introduced in April of '64. If we didn't know that date, the system others are proposing would assume the car was introduced in 1963 which is incorrect and misleading. Furthermore, the "production" dates are going to be seen as model years to a North American reader unless there's a specific date. I've already seen IPs changing back to model years what some overzealous editors have changed to calendar year. To sum up my position for the sake of those finding this via RfC: I support adding a "model year" field to the infobox to be used for North American-market cars and other vehicles which are sold under the model year system. "Production" will be used for the actual calendar date. --Sable232 (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Sable232, Please take the time and effort to read others' comments carefully and make sure you understand them (ask, if necessary) before you respond. I don't insist on a single method for everything, I think it's best if both model years and production dates fields are present in the infobox template, but only one or the other is used in any given infobox, not both, except in special cases by consensus. This probably does mean that there'll be a general, gradual evolution from model years (which are less precise and less informative) to production dates (which are more precise and more informative), as the start and end dates for any given vehicle are found and sourced. Furthermore, you've responded to TheHalfOne as though he asked if a layman would understand a 1970 model year entry to mean that vehicle production started in 1969. That is not what he asked. He asked (I quote from above) If you wrote "The first model year for the *** was 1970.". Would a north American layman understand that this might mean it was already being sold in 1969? (emphasis added). The answer to his question as asked is yes, a North American layman understands that production of a 1970-model car might have started in 1969. Your confusion on this point and your 1964 Barracuda example both serve to illustrate the precision deficit created by using model years rather than production dates. Your suggestion to use model years for North American-market cars is not practicable for the simple reason that many vehicle models are sold globally. You admit that model years "won't fly outside of North America." That's a very important point that you have previously had difficulty accepting, and I'm glad to see your progress here. As has been exhaustively discussed (and as you now seem to agree), Wikipedia is a global project, and U.S. model years are largely meaningless outside the North American market. Production dates, in contrast, are equally informative all over the world, even if they are not the commonest colloquial referent to a vehicle's "birthday" in North America. Given that reality, are you quite sure you're advocating the use of model years because you really, genuinely think it's better for the encyclopædia, and not simply because you like them? Keep in mind, we have templates like this one: {{Globalize/North_America}} But we don't have any opposite templates that say anything along the lines of "This article is written from an inappropriately global viewpoint. Please edit it for greater centrality of the North American viewpoint." —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I never had difficulty accepting that model years aren't in use elsewhere. I had difficulty understanding why they were so unacceptable to some people. Nevertheless, are you proposing to put both fields in the infobox with preference towards exact start and stop dates, as opposed to using a bare calendar year? In that case, I think I support it. I prefer model years in the infobox because they're simpler to work with and not in question. My opposition is more towards the use of bare calendar years (which will make zero sense to too many people). I think exact dates are more detail than is needed but if it keeps things clear then so be it.--Sable232 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Getting to "Yes"

Good gravy. It seems we could've avoided a whole whackload of back-and-forthing if only I'd been more explicit on that point right from the start! The answer to your question is Yes: the method I favour is to have both fields in the template, use only the model years field with a year-only entry unless/until more precise production dates (month, year or day, month, year) are known, then use only the production dates field with that data. I totally agree with you that a year-only entry in the production dates field would be confusing and problematic for exactly the reason you state. —Scheinwerfermann T·C17:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Well, I am afraid that you both have focused on trying to agree with each other. I think the solution proposed above is convulted and does not really make the infobox simple and easy to use. If a hypothetical North American person KNOWS that a 2009 car could have been made anytime in 2008, then why bend over backwards? "Production" means production, not "something possibly else, like model years, or sumfink, chocolate jam and muffins". It's production. The only thing problematic here is that some North American users are taken aback by putting it in writing that a 2009 was indeed made in 2008. Leave production as production. Put model years in article body, even section headers. Keep it simple, keep it plain, keep it gay, keep it gay, keep it gay. Good boo! PrinceGloria (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC) PS. I adore that. Gotta make that an official template: Inappropriate template removed from discussion.--Flash176 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC) PrinceGloria, I've grown tired of your constant refusal to at least attempt a compromise or be productive in this discussion. Everyone else here has made an effort to find common ground. Your lack of cooperation is further evidenced by this latest nonsensical statement. While Wikipedia is not a democracy and a consensus is required, a unanimous decision is not. You are the only person now who opposes the use of model years in the infobox (yes, Typ932 agreed to the use here). Therefore, whether you like it or not, the consensus is to use model years in the infobox, we just now have to decide the proper formatting. I have also removed your faux template because it was sardonic and antagonistic.--Flash176 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC) I don't want to turn this into a dogpile, but I have to agree. PrinceGloria, you do a great deal of very good work in this project, but sometimes your approach to questions like the present one looks closer to ownership than to coöperation. That's understandable, but it's not okay, and I wish you would please do some thoughtful self-evaluation around it. In the meantime, Flash176 is right: At great long last we have consensus. It'd be nice if we could have unanimity, but it's not required. At this point, your efforts would be far better put towards shaping the details of the convention rather than filibustering. Please? (As an aside, I appreciate the humour of the template, but Flash176 is right; this is a fraught enough discussion that the humour can too easily be mistaken. Maybe put it on your userpage instead?) —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Text proposals & discussion

Text proposals There is now consensus for inclusion of both Production: and Model years: fields in the template. In this section, we'll work up appropriate usage convention text for those fields, to be inserted in the Meanings section of the template page. I propose the following: Amendment 1 —19:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Model years: the model years in which the vehicle was marketed. No months or half-years. Empty this field and place actual production date in the Production field as this information becomes available. When this field is used, the Production field is not used. Production: the calendar dates (start and end year and month, with day if available) during which the vehicle was built. When this field is used, the Model years field is not used. —Scheinwerfermann T·C15:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Have we thought about maybe combining both of these fields into one? I'm not arguing whether or not the fields are used, just how they are possibly displayed. On {{Infobox Motorcycle}}, we had a discussion maybe a year ago about which weight should appear in the infobox; wet weight or dry weight. We ultimately went with both, but in a combined field of the infobox to optimize the space used. Check out this simple example I have created that use two separate variable, but put them into one field on the rendered infobox. Check out how the variables work and how the code looks. Maybe there's something like this you guys would be interested in using? roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC) I will reply concerning the keruffle above (pure misunderstanding, I certainly did not mean to come accross as insensitive and stubborn), and I apologize for it - but now, why do we need actual dates in the production field? It will get rather clumsy. It works well with years... PrinceGloria (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Roguegeek, that's an interesting bit of code, but we long ago considered and rejected the idea of displaying both production dates and model years in any given infobox. PrinceGloria, thanks for reassessing your remarks of yesterday. There are a couple of sound reasons for using actual dates rather than just years in the Production: field. For one thing, actual dates give much more precise information than just a year, without significantly more text characters needed to convey it. That makes it a "low cost" improvement, if you will. Secondly, as has been pointed out, using just a year in Production: will create ambiguity and confusion because of the existence of the model year phenomenon. —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Dear Scheinwerfermann, I beg to differ. I do believe stuffing as much info as possible into the 'box is rather against its purpose - it should briefly summarize the most important information in a clear manner. This seems to me a bit like listing all possible body/chassis types for pickups or adding remarks to akas such as "Japan only" or "1974-1975". I do believe years alone suffice. Any confusion can be dealt with within the text. After all, we still have 2-door/3-door hatchback issues etc. and somehow readers and editors from accross the world deal with that. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC) I don't agree with the following text: , formatted as day month, year or as month, year We can not define date formatting here or force how editors should display it. This is a task that is already well defined here which is very clear to show that day month, year is not an acceptable date format. It should be left up to the editors and the only acceptable forms are what are defined by the style manual. Basically, any date defined as acceptable by Wikipedia should be acceptable by us. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Good point. I've amended my proposal accordingly. —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC) The actual production time, should be always on the box (it makes much easier to compare cars from same years) and additionally model years (with country where it is marketed as those?) below it. It is very hard to find exact dates, usually the years are easy to find. --— Typ932T | C  19:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC) PrinceGloria and Typ932, please read and understand the text immediately below this section's header. Actual production start and end date info often isn't at all "very hard" to find. The Chrysler minivan, for example, entered production on 2 November 1983, and that can be supported easily. But you're right that sometimes exact dates won't be available; that's why the consensus is to have both fields available and only one or the other used in any given infobox, according to the level of information available for any given auto. —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Well maybe it depends what cars you trying to find, but I havent found exact dates so easily....Its sometimes even hard to find the years... --— Typ932T | C  07:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) In which case model years would be used. PrinceGloria, I'm sorry as well. I apologize if I was overly harsh, I'm just tired of this discussion dragging on. I really do appreciate your work here. :) As for the actual dates, I agree with Scheinwerfermann. Adding a month and perhaps a day will hardly (in my opinion) add to infobox clutter. I believe adding the extra information has the double benefit of not only giving the user more of an exact production date, but also helping to prevent potential confusion between model and production years, since adding a month or month/day should make it obvious as to which the article is referring. Scheinwerfermann, as far as the "no half years" goes, why do you say this? What about the '64 1/2 Ford Mustang? I really don't care either way, I'm just curious as to your reasoning.--Flash176 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Two four-digit years fit into one infobox line. Two full dates with month names spelled out in English do not. The added benefit of the infobox is that of providing a succint SUMMARY of information, not providing as much as possible - I don't see the exact date as a benefit in this respect. The differentiation between production and model year fields should be done by the field's name, I guess that would be pretty obvious. Does this system mean that we do away with model years once a month of production start/end is known? I don't think it does make too much sense for actual users not involved in this discussion. I believe people familiar with the "model year" system do know anyway that a 2009 could have been made in 2008 (or even earlier in fact), so why create confusion and create alternating fields? I am not a big fan of "and a half" model years, as they are for the most part kind of "OR", in that they are referred to as such in the vernacular, and not by the manufacturer in official marketing, which is the sole origin of a model year. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC) "In which case model years would be used." Not really..how an earth you would know the model years if you dont know the production years...maybe in America but not in Europe. I still say that we should use both production and model years and it is NOT EASY to find exact dates Ill can give you some examples what you can try find if needed --— Typ932T | C  20:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC) What North American cars are you having a hard time finding the production years for?--Flash176 (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Who? I havent said anything about North American cars, its more easy to find those than European cars --— Typ932T | C  21:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC) So then what exactly are you taking issue with? I'm confused.--Flash176 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Read again the whole thread.... --— Typ932T | C  21:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I have...--Flash176 (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Alright, I've read over this discussion several times and am still having difficulty understanding exactly what the usage should be regarding both model year and production dates. I understand that we have agreed that model year is an acceptable field until we can figure out what the production dates are down to, at the very least, the month and, if possible, the day. Now what if a vehicle is no longer in production and we only have a start month and no end month (or vice versa)? We continue to use model year? In this case, I would say yes. What about vehicle still in production? Do we use, for example, July 1991 - present? Whatever the case, the usage and description need to be very clear. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Can we all agree (I probably don't even need to ask) that there will be one date or model year range used, instead of however many for every market? See Pontiac Parisienne and Bull-Doser's latest edit to Chevrolet Lumina. --Sable232 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Your opening four words imply a steam roller coming down the road before I even reach the middle of the sentence. Avoiding the temptation to resist steam rollers regardless of the merits of their case...: I think you simply have to take this on a case by case basis. If you have an essentially identical car that was important in more than one mainstream market and manufactured in more than one main stream location, BUT was manufactured during different periods in different places, I don't think you have a choice: it's key data and it belongs in the info box. Think, in modern times, of Volkswagen or Citroen or Buick badged products manufactured in China and in Germany and / or Mexico and / or Brazil and / or Michigan.... It won't make sense to you as a statesider to see only the Chinese production period because Chinese volumes for the Buick in question dwarfed North American sales for the same model. BUT you're right that, taken too far, that approach could become plain silly. Where you have identical models built in the US and in Canada but covering different time periods, you are dealing with two significant production countries: I don't know too much about the production schedules affecting the Pontiac Parisienne or the Chevrolet Lumina, but if I lived in Detroit and periodically crossed the bridge / tunnel into Ontario it would interest me that same cars were built in different periods in the two countries. Ditto in reverse if I lived in Windsor. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC) According to assembly place it was produced only in Canada... --— Typ932T | C  13:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Okay, I guess I wasn't thinking clearly last night. We shouldn't be giving another date range for Canada because sales stopped there before production did, or another date range for the U.S. because the long-in-production Canadian model was sold there for a few years, right? And many North American cars were exported to Europe, should we be adding a separate range for all of those? It's my understanding that the Chinese Buicks are different from North American Buicks (most of them are Holden and Opel clones) and the ones that share nameplates and underpinnings with the NA Buicks are Chinese-built anyway, so this wouldn't apply, would it? --Sable232 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC) For what it's worth - and this is a shameless digression - 95% of what I know about Buicks in China is here. From that I infer that US Buicks were / are also manufactured in China, but if a Chinese market expert would like to expand my knowledge here and / or in the Buick entry (or maybe even as a separate entry on GM in China) that would be interesting and yes please. But the example I had most directly in mind (above) was the Volkswagen Santana, a notchback version of the second generation Volkswagen Passat (might be be a first generation Passat in North America where the original Passat was branded as the VW Dasher, I think.) that was produced in China and Brazil long after it had been superseded in Germany / Europe (and indeed for the North American market), though I think much more recently the Chinese Santana may itself have evolved somewhat... Charles01 (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC). The production field should have only one date range, and if wanted use assembly field to add details for assembly dates in different countries --—Typ932T | C  18:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion & conclusion

Discussion from 10 December I'm sorry to have been absent from this discussion for so long. It's not for lack of interest, it's just that the question of what to do when only the start or end production date is known kind of threw me for a loop. Really good question, hadn't considered it. A couple ideas occurred to me. We could use model years until the start and end dates are known, but that would be tantamount to deliberately retarding the improvement of the information in an article, and I have a hard time swallowing that idea. Probably better to have a grand total of three fields in the template: Production start Production end Model years Suppose we were dealing with a vehicle sold from model years 1989 through 1995, and we knew production started on 16 September 1988, but we didn't know when it ended. The infobox would contain Model years: 1989–1995 Production start: 16 September 1988 Once the end date were determined, we'd add it and withdraw the model years entry from the infobox, which would contain Production start: 16 September 1988 Production end: 3 January 1995 As for the question of how to handle differing sale timeframes in different markets...this strikes at the very centre of why we are having this whole discussion. Sales timeframes in the American market are denoted by model years. Sales timeframes in other markets may or may not use a model year type of denotation, but they can and often do differ from the US-market (or other home-market) sales timeframe. That is what makes sales timeframes less suitable and production dates more suitable for the vehicle summary contained in the infobox. The sales timeframes in various markets are ready matter for discussion in the article text. —Scheinwerfermann T·C03:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC) To have exact dates is quite unnecessary and it adds one extra field already long box, as it is said it is hard to find exact dates for European cars --— Typ932T | C  13:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Typ932, you've made it amply clear you want only model years in the infobox. We're past that point in this discussion, and even if we weren't, you've still provided no support for your assertion that it's difficult to find production start and end dates for European (or any other) cars. Repeating an assertion multiple times does not imbue it with veracity. —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC) You dont seems to understand that it is hard, why you keep insisting that we need those? should i give you some examples for example from 30s or 50s??? And you have not provided any support for your assertion that it's easy to find those --— Typ932T | C  20:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC) I understand you are saying it's difficult to find production start and end dates for certain vehicles. I'm sure you're right; in some cases we may never find that information. That's exactly why it makes sense to have provisions in the infobox for less-specific information for use in cases where that's the only info available, and for more-specific information for use when that info becomes available. Your argument here seems to be that in some cases we won't be able to find production start and end dates easily, so we shouldn't present it in any case, even if we have it. I find that argument puzzling at best. There is ample evidence for production start and end dates being readily available — not for all vehicles, of course, but for many. To give just one example, there's day, month and year start and end info for each and every model covered in this book, which is used as one of the references in Chrysler Valiant. Please also keep in mind that edit summaries calling a discussion "silly" are not helpful. —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC) It may be easy to find some dates, but in most cases its not, maybe easy for newest cars and certain markets, so if that is going to to be added we need some other opinions, but Ill vore for no , you should also check ur own attitude here --— Typ932T | C  19:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Not sure how well this is going to go down, but I made a comment here before seeing the comments here and in the archives of the WP:CAR talk pages, suggesting to use a template like Template:Vgrelease (used for video game release dates). This would solve the model year problem, in that the "US" or "NA" year will be the model year, and whatever else will be relevant to whatever other country or region. I know this could get unwieldy for popular worldwide cars (e.g. Toyota Corolla), but it would be a solution to the model year vs. production year problem, and clarify where cars have significantly longer production runs in developing countries (e.g. Peugeot 504, which pretty much has what I'm suggesting) or largely different availability in different markets (e.g. Zastava Koral). Though this adds another problem - whether to still include a production date field as well as this, or include production date as part of this template, or just assume a non-North American date is a production date (which may be messy, and will never be right for NA cars). Does anyone think this would be a good solution? I know it would be adding more bloat to the infobox, but like with video games I think it may be a necessary evil. --Zilog Jones (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Typ932, you continue to assert that it's hard to find production numbers in "most" cases. I'd hate to conclude you're just gainsaying whatever evidence I make in an effort to derail something you don't like, but I've asked you repeatedly to support your assertion, and all you've done is repeat it. I've provided evidence to support my position and counterexamples to challenge yours, which you have dismissed without countervailing support for your position. If you can do better than that, please do so now. Otherwise I will go ahead and amend the template to include Model years, Production start, and Production end fields in accord with apparent consensus, which does not require unanimity. Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say you'd "vote no"; please remember Wikipedia does not operate according to votes. You are the only person who wants dates and you are going to include those..???????? okay try to find exact dates fro example Alfa Romeo Gran Sport Quattroruote or Ferrari 250 GTO, what YOU like isnt what every other likes here, do you think you are someking of special contributor here? --Typ932 T·C 23:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Zilog Jones, this is an interesting suggestion you make. It's not quite responsive to the question at hand (during what timeframe was the subject automobile manufactured?), but it does address a similar question (during what timeframe was the subject automobile sold?). I'm not entirely sure this information is necessary or desireable in the infobox, which is meant to be a summary overview and not a fully detailed rundown on the specifics and vagaries best covered in the article text itself. Your Peugeot 504 example is a good one; another would be the Renault 12. If the Renault 12 was made and sold in Europe from 1973 (or whatever) through 1982 (or whatever), and sold in Brazil through 1991 and made and sold in Argentina through 1993, that would make the production range 1973 through 1993. The different marketing timeframes would then be covered in detail in the article text. And since every vehicle has its devotées and its literature, specific production start and end dates are generally not difficult to find. In the case of the Renault 12, the production started in France and ended in Argentina (unless it continues elsewhere without my awareness), but regardless of that, the production start date is the production start date and the production end date is the production end date. I'm going to think at greater length about the video game infobox intro format you've pointed us to. It seems it could probably be adapted and put to good use here on the automobiles project, I'm just not sure precisely where at the moment. Thanks for joining the discussion! —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Yes I agree it's hard to justify which dates are the most relevant for putting in the infobox, which is why I made my suggestion though I'm not sure if it will pose more of a problem than a solution. I personally would like to see such information in the infobox when there are significant differences in worldwide availability like the above examples, and other notably unusual circumstances, e.g. the Toyota Corolla E100 series was introduced in Japan in 1995, but was not brought to most export markets until 1997 (1998MY in US) meaning the E100 was still for sale up until 1997 elsewhere - none of this is explained particularly well in either articles and currently the reader would have to read each section for each market to understand what was going on exactly. I guess these things could just be made clearer in the opening paragraph instead. But what I'm suggesting could also accomodate for model years as well as peculiarities like the above, and then we can have a convention to deal with different years in general so don't have to put up with more silly edit wars or endless discussions and can go back to making the text part of the articles good! --Zilog Jones (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I think this whole discussion should be on WP:CARS talk page, to get more opinions than just Scheinwerfermann´s ... --Typ932 T·C 12:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I've read through some of the discussion on this. The compromise that Scheinwerfermann proposed looks pretty reasonable. I can't imagine it's really that hard to get the actual dates. I saw an old debate on this where someone said that production start/stop dates for American-market cars can't be found. Well... I've found a lot of them. Granted, it's not always easy to find both in some cases, but usually they turn up somehow, even if it's just the month. -Olds 403 (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Uh...Typ932, you know as well as everyone else that this matter has been discussed at great length in numerous discussions over a long period of time and in several forums, many opinions have been contributed, and you are presently the only one still bucking for the exclusive use of model years in the infobox. It is disingenuous and not supportable to claim a paucity of input on this matter. Now: Can you or can't you support your assertion that it's hard to find production start and end dates in most cases? —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC) What are you talking about?? there hasnt been any discussion about adding exact dates, only long discussions to add add also model years field and I gave you couple of examples to try find those dates easily, try to find them --Typ932 T·C 12:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot

So has anyone put any thought into setting up one of the bots out there to go through all of the articles and change the original 'production' field into one of the newly introduced fields? I've been going through familiar articles slowly, but the bot will be the only comprehensive way to get this done. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We dont have dates to those fields.. --Typ932 ^T·C 11:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all familiar with the available bots, nor with how to write new ones. I agree a bot would probably greatly speed migration, if we could figure out exactly what we want the bot to do (and what we want it not to do). Production-start and production-end data will still have to be entered manually article-by-article, because it requires data with a higher level of specificity not previously contained in the infobox. Perhaps Lightmouse might have some suggestions, or could point us in the right direction…? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)