Template talk:Infobox automobile/Archive 5

Electric range and fuel capacity
Both are in the template code, but neither is mentioned under "Usage" and "Meanings" &mdash;&#8202;Mr. Grim Reaper at 17:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ 99.38.150.198 (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Consistency
Hey people. I made very minor changes here and here to keep nomenclature consistent with the rest of the fields. Not sure if I stepped on any toes doing this, so I'm just making sure to note it here. Let me know if this created a problem of any kind. Thanks. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cleanup; all my toes are intact and uncrunched. :o) —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Electric vehicle
An infobox for electric vehicles would be very usefull (all-electric, plug-in hybrid ...).--Nopetro (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Which information elements would be best for this; battery energy capacity, battery type, motor type, motor power rating, range, charging times, ...? --Skyemoor (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Coefficient of drag. Actually, I think it would be useful for all automobiles, not just electric vehicles, though it's more important for electric vehicles. Brentonboy (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the infobox is only supposed to contain overview and summary information. It should not be a list of specifications or any other detailed information.  That can be covered in the body of the article.  swa  q  15:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. I think that drag coefficient is one of the most important features of cars nowadays, and shoudl be included in the overview. Brentonboy (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I think it is too technical for the general reader. Even car magazines rarely include the coefficient of drag except when particularly notable.  swa  q  16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest include the information proposed by Skyemoor, mainly the all-electric range, battery type and electric modes (PHEV, HEV, AEV - all-electric vehicle-). Coefficient of drag could be common with the general template for ICEVs (internal combustion engine vehicles) and EV (electric vehicles). --Nopetro (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey this does not work see Talk:Chevrolet_Volt Wilee (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See template documents, its not supporting all those fields used in Volt article -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 18:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why does the discussion say it is there, where it is not this may lead to confusion Template_talk:Infobox_automobile. As people have a range anxiety it would be good to have the data so people can compare plug-in vs pure electric and what works best for them. Even Honda's powered by natural gas/fuel cell have range anxiety as finding places for fuel can be difficult.

Wilee (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you would like to have new fields added to this template, then please go ahead and propose them. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  02:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

New template
Template:electric vehicle added. Should be adequate for battery electric and hybrid electric vehicles. It adds {motor, battery, range, electric_range}. It is otherwise identical.--Sandresa (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Price
I suggest include a field for orientative (recommended) price or a general field for notes. --Nopetro (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary.--Ridge Runner (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On general principle - yes. But on a more practical note we would have to either choose one country (home market, first market, biggest market, my country) or include a list for every country. And then we get to decide if we choose a representative model/grade/level/trim, list them all or provide a range. Not practical, so leave it out. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Field for notes - definitely not. A notes field would be so open to abuse (big long rambling notes or a substitute for all those fields that keep being voted out). At the very least, it makes it hard for automated tools to pull info out of the infobox. The infobox is supposed to be short and simple. The main article text is where notes go. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NOPRICES. Wikipedia is not a price guide, and they vary by year and country anyway.  No notes either, anything not categorized in the infobox can go in the main article. --Vossanova o&lt; 13:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys, please don't forget to indent your comments.--Ridge Runner (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was replying to the original request from Nopetro. You don't have to add an indent level for each reply, just one after what you're replying to. If it helps you scan the comments more easily, you could add a bullet point before each reply. --Vossanova o&lt; 15:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read Scheinwerfermann's page.--Ridge Runner (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Like Vossanova said, we were responding to the top level comment, not each other, therefore our indents should be one more than what we were responding to. When we are responding to YOUR comment we indent one more than YOU. Stepho-wrs (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Manufacture and parent company documentation
I'm still seeing a lot of Chevys tagged with Chevrolet being the manufacturer and General Motors being the parent company and Lincolns tagged with Lincoln for manufacturer and Ford for parent company. Based on the discussion here and here, I'd like to clarify the manufacturer and parent company field documentation for clarity. It's currently written as the following:
 * manufacturer: The legal entity that manufactures (or manufactured) the vehicle
 * parent company: Industrial group or holding company, if any, which owns or owned the manufacturer (as defined here) when the vehicle was produced

Anyone with thoughts on how to improve this? roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per my latest reply, my suggestion to resolve this would be to remove parent company from the automobile infobox altogether. Otherwise, I've assumed that it is the parent company of the brand, not the manufacturer. --Vossanova o&lt; 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, I saw that. I actually completely agree. Would still like to work on the wording for manufacturer as well. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with it. We seem to have consensus that it should be the company or joint venture that manufactures the car, not necessarily the brand. --Vossanova o&lt; 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Future production dates
I would like to add to the notes that there should be no future dates for Production, Production_start, Production_end, or Model years. In the infoboxes, these values should always reflect what has happened. Future dates (with references of course) can be mentioned in paragraphs throughout the article. Agree/disagree? --Vossanova o&lt; 16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Plans can (and often do) change. But the past remains fixed. If there is uncertainty (which includes future plans) about a date then leave it blank.  Stepho   (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, I added to the Notes section. I'm not going to strictly enforce no production_start for future models where the start year is widely publicized (e.g. Chevrolet Volt) but we should have a consistent policy for production_start and production_end. --Vossanova o&lt; 18:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed in total, albeit after the fact. Just to dissuade any future dissenters.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about adding 0-60 times?
What do you think about adding 0-60 times? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. Subjective figures such as performance should not be added to the infobox. --Vossanova o&lt; 15:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Each automobile model year and would need its own statistic for this, the problem isn't that they are subjective, it's that there are many variations even within the same model year, depending on transmission options (Auto/manual), weight variations based on trim types, and values for engine displacement. I suggest putting together table of "Comparision of automobile acceleration performance" in your userspace, and inviting others to comment on how useful it is. Watchpup (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturer: a different problem
I am currently applying an infobox to an article about a coupé where the entire run was made by a coachbuilder outside the facilities of the manufacturer of the sedan on which the coupe is based. Would the manufacturer be the coachbuilder or the manufacturer of the sedan (= supplier of engine, suspension components, etc.)? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can use manufacturer as the brand who has (probably) ordered the job from coachbuilder told in assembly field. Give your opinion also in the discussion board of WP:CARS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Information_in_infoboxes --Typ932 T&middot;C 14:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Suspension Type
Suspension type is an incredibly important part of a cars design. It would be great if there was a front_suspension and rear_suspension value for the automobile infobox. Quite frankly, I was surprised I could not add it already.

An example might be:

...


 * font_suspension: MacPhearson Struts (Independent)


 * rear_suspension: Multilink (Independent)

....

or for say a Cayman S

...


 * font_suspension: MacPhearson Struts (Independent)


 * rear_suspension: MacPhearson Struts (Independent)

...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpodhola (talk • contribs) 18:34, 14 September 2010


 * Agreed, suspension type is incredibly important, but the infobox is not the best or most efficient way to display it. It should be added as prose to the main text of the article, along with detailed explanations of the engines and transmissions, et cetera. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Caption
I added the discussed (in WP:CARS) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_25#New_infobox.3F caption possibility to infobox image, as there is some sort of need for it. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 09:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why are we forcing the caption to be in italics? It's not a foreign language?  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  20:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think its better to have like that, otherwise it would "steal" the main title focus. Italics can be used in other cases also that just foreign language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_type -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 05:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Having it in italics makes it stand out unnecessarily.  If you want to make it stand out less, just use a smaller font, which is what as already done by default with infobox.  We should just use the default, unless there is a reason to do otherwise.  You are free to add italics within particular articles, but no reason to force it. MOS:ITALICS does not list captions. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  07:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Typ932. Italicisation of the caption looks better in my opinion and also serves to separate it from the rest of the data. The font size is already smaller, and making it too small will make it difficult to read on some screens. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We already have hundreds of articles using this style, those are made without this field in infobox. All infoboxes in different wikiprojects arent looking exactly the same anyway. Just look different uses and most of them look very different. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 08:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See MOS:CAPTION. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your revert causes lots of work. Nothing more to add. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 09:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Plastikspork. Any discussion on italicizing captions in toto should begin at MOS:CAPTION. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 13:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why this happens just now, we have been using italics for many years in automobile infoboxes. Why you werent intrested this earlier? -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 14:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Months
In the production field, listing year and month when available is currently preferred. However, what is the preference on how to write the month? Personally I favor 1977.12 over any other method, because the year should have primacy and numerics are easy to comprehend for the many non-English speaking users who also depend on en.wikipedia. I hesitate to list the possible versions, but here is a start:


 * 1977.12 - 1984.02 (1)
 * Dec 1977 - Feb 1984 (2)
 * 12.1977 - 02.1984 (3)
 * 1977 (Dec) - 1984 (Feb) (4)

I guess that deciding on which options to make available for voting might be our first concern, unless these four manage to cover all preferences.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I like option one the most for the same reason as you, but WP:DATE does not cover that style. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Option 2 is the normal format in all English speaking countries that I know of. None of the other formats are familiar to most native English speakers - even worse, options 1 and 2 are quite confusing to anybody not expecting them (does 1997.1 mean first day/week/month/quarter of 1997). Anybody who can read English well enough to understand the articles should have no trouble understanding the abbreviations for months. 6 years of programming credit card EFTPOS terminals in Hong Kong has exposed me to dozens of different date formats and all their advantages/disadvantages. The only way to choose a good format was to know the target audience - in this case, those that know at least rudimentary English.   Stepho   (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As for WP:DATE, there is a subsection which states that: "year-initial numerical (YYYY-MM-DD) dates (e.g. 1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness." To me, this means that infobox usage (where conciseness is indeed of value) of YYYY-MM should be okay - if that is the consensus reached. However, option 3 is clearly out according to WP:DATESNO. Personally, I somewhat prefer the numerical style, but only ever for infoboxes (and references), never ever ever ever in prose.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest that, but YYYY-MM can be confusing in a date range, for example:
 * 2003-05-2007-02 (dash)
 * 2003-05–2007-02 (en dash)
 * 2003-05 - 2007-02 (dash with spaces)
 * 2003-05 – 2007-02 (en dash with spaces)


 * However, if it is done correctly (i.e. "en dash with spaces") it can work, but the least confusing format is probably Dec 1977 – Feb 1984.


 * P.S. Mr.choppers, I am not sure if you noticed, but over at Talk:Mitsubishi Delica I have provided those magazine scans as promised. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 07:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * While I still prefer option 2 (as I stated above), any numeric scheme should use slashes (eg 12/1997 or 1997/12). Slashes are far more common than various forms of dashes (long or short) for dates and avoid ambiguity for date ranges. By the way, yyyy/mm/dd is the most common format used throughout Asia (with all numbers) and some places in Northern Europe (with numbers or alphabetic). I prefer yyymmmdd for computer filenames because sorting alphabetically also sorts it in correct time order (handy for keeping important tax records) but I try to keep details like that away from lay readers.  Stepho   (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The slashes seem to be prevalent in general everyday usage, but Wikipedia does not like them as they aren't very good in global contexts. The ISO date format (e.g. 2011-04-01) overcomes this (and also works better with computers), but while most of world would write 01/04/2011, people from North America tend to confuse us all by writing 04/01/2011, hence the rigid and unambiguous ISO format. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 1977.12 and the like are esoteric and difficult to read. We should not be sacrificing common and legible English usage on the English Wikipedia for non-English-speakers.
 * Even with WP:DATE, it seems like numeric date formats are falling out of favor outside of prose. Access dates in references used to be in ISO format and at some point in the not-too-distant past consensus changed to favor written-out dates. Also, while the infobox isn't prose I think it's still a prominent enough item on the page that we should keep that in consideration. Since space isn't an issue (full months with years fits on one line just fine) I'm not sure the "conciseness" part applies. --Sable232 (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer option 4 [1977 (Dec) - 1984 (Feb)] purely because I believe that the year is the most important aspect and is what most readers want and for those who want the specific month, it will still be there. -- Pineapple Fez 08:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is best if we follow WP:DATESNO. I also think Sable232 may be right that written-out date ranges (i.e. July 2003 – September 2006) will fit on one line in the infobox so we are probably looking to fix a problem that does not exist. If there are a few combinations that don't fit, then they certainly would when we finally get around to increasing the default infobox image size to 300 pixels wide.


 * Speaking of the infobox, maybe we should facelift our very plain version to ape the French Wikipedia equivalent? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mileage and vehicle range
It would be helpful to list mileage (min/max) and range (min/max) in the infobox. Consensus would need to develop around how to compute and average value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.36.149 (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The appearance of automobile infoboxes
The automobile infobox template should really be upgraded. For example french wikipedia has astonishingly good automobile infobox as the appearance there is much more clear, informative and user friendly. This update would greatly improve the user experience.

Jakereye 20:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakereye (talk • contribs)


 * I also really like the French WP infobox. Is anyone good with wiki code? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I had a look around the French Infobox Automobile template. Like the English infobox family, each French infobox template is part of a larger family. Each particular infobox (eg for automobiles, planes, people, countries, etc) uses smaller templates that are shared among the entire family. Unfortunately, the English and French infoboxes are built along different lines, making it very hard to steal the French code for pasting into the English templates. Each member of the English infobox family comes down to passing all the data to a rather bland template that presents a title, a photo and a lot of simple lines. The French family has each user callable template looking more like 'infobox/start, infobox/title, handle photo, infobox/separator, infobox/line(parameters), ... infobox/separator, infobox/line(parameters), infobox/end'. We would have to either convince all the infobox templates to shift to the French system or to completely rebuild Infobox Automobiles along the same lines as the French version - splitting away from the rest of the English infobox family. I feel this should be presented to the infobox project for discussion. PS: the French version does look a lot better than ours :)  Stepho  talk 13:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hopefully someone improves our master templates then. Although, one bad thing about the French infoboxes is their bulkiness. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it would possible to make it nearly to look like French one if you look the for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedetto_Brin and the infobox docs  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox , anyway much better looking one would be possible to make, one other thing is that it should be much more automated one, for example you should be able to just add image and not define its default size, automobile template is kinda old in its current state -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 05:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It certainly does look neater. Most of the infobox family just remap themselves to . This has the advantage that they all share a common look and changes to the main 'infobox' template are inherited by all members of the family. However, implements everything itself (or in its own helper templates), thus loosing most of the advantages of being part of the infobox family. 'Infobox officeholder' has taken the split option that I mentioned above. If the choice was mine, I would add various helper templates (similar to the French helper templates) and then convert all members of the infobox family to the new system one by one. That way we get the look of the French system while still sharing the underlying code within the family. I'm a professional computer programmer (25 years experience) and preferring code sharing/reuse over hundreds of separate implementations is a central tenant of software engineering for reliability and ease of maintenance. If you like, we can suggest the new format to the infobox project.  Stepho  talk  01:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Max speed
Why there is no max speed option? It is so basic that I really don't known why... Yes of course there are different engine types, etc. But You can also add with what configuration it is achieved, esp. basing on usual fuel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cue sixty to seventy lines of top speeds, according to engine/transmission configurations. Also there are differences between different markets, to add confusion and a wealth of largely useless material.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  19:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Merging process
now the body style line is missing (styles still there) ... -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like that was a typo. Should be fixed now.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  17:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The related field also went up, I think it was lower before changes, im not sure if that matters, but its not so relevant info it should be that high -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the merged template be moved to a more generic name (as discussed during the TfD period)? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * More generic than "automobile"? Is it to be used on articles on stagecoaches? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To most people, "automobile" means "car". As well as buses, this infobox is already used for trucks. My suggestion in the TfD was to use or ; another editor countered with  (which is fine by me). Note also that we have three, separate, Wikiprojects, for automobiles, trucks and buses.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm okay with a move to infobox motor vehicle if there are no objections. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support rename to infobox motor vehicle. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Shall we do this, then? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

related + designer
The related field and designer field are still in wrong place, if I remeber correct the merge was supposed to do so that it not interfere automobile infobox -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 16:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They were in the wrong place before: they should have been integrated into the appropriate part of the infobox and not just tacked onto the bottom. That improvement is orthogonal to the merge. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesnt matter, they are now in wrong place after the edit, its editor job to take care about the changes it makes to the output. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 12:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I'll make this plainer: this was a deliberate change. If you disagree with it, the onus is on you to provide a convincing rationale for it, rather than just "it wasn't like that before". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So you think they are in better place now?? ugh, I think it would be wise to discuss before making changes like this -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 16:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion in the merging proposition addressed these concerns, and the merging is now spoiling this automobile template as it was worried. The merging was agreed not to interfere other projects?. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 16:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the fourth content-free opposition you've given to this change. Either give a reason beyond "I don't like change, this wasn't discussed" or keep your peace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So whats your reason? I dont need reason, because I did not change it. I really dont know whats ur problem is, but try to keep your horses on stable, usually when you change something you give some edit summary, you just make "sync" and hups everything is f..ed up -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Related" and "Designer" are attributes which belong with the other "history/creation" attributes. Previously, they were incongruously positioned at the bottom of the template. This was a no-brainer improvement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Really are you serious... these are minor details of automobile data, they dont need to be on the top details, there is far more important details, thats why they were put at the bottom at the first place . That was very bad "improvement" as was this whole merging. It just gave the troubles that was discussed in the merging proposition -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 18:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ... And now disruptively reverted by you. This doesn't reflect at all well on your judgement nor on your ability to collaborate with other editors affording you (unwarranted) good faith. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So you collaborate with other editors by syncing your own ideas to template which is job of long discussions on wp:cars -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 18:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor in the section below disagrees with your edit as well. Will you give a valid reason for it yet, or will you continue to hide behind process? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * YOU need to give valid reason why you changed it without any explanation just by "syncin", these are matters that should be discusses beforehand for exmplae in the WP:CARS, so you are now happy with one editor support, give me a break, this is going to turn very funny, and I also give my reason already if you can read, you dont get it, that these big things like this template used on thousands of articles are done with colloborative work, not by one own syncings or "brain" ideas -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 18:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See my reply three comments up. I disagree with your assertion that the designer of an automobile is a "minor detail", and especially that this means said attribute belongs at the bottom of the template. I'm disinclined to argue further given the paucity of valid opposition: if you want to raise this at WT:CARS then be my guest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I support Chris' well-reasoned changes. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I oppose placing the "designer" field at near the top - it's not always very important, may be disputed, and is often left empty. As for the "related" field, it is to me less important than the "aka" field. However, I don't know whether these two ought to be separated or placed near each other in the infobox?  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  19:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please actually investigate the request before commenting on it. The fields in question would not be placed "at the top": they would be placed as in the right-hand example on Template:Infobox automobile/testcases. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At the top, near the top - my opinion is still the same.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  18:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The second example looks terrible. Please leave the related cars at the bottom, it matches the article look where related articles are placed at the bottom. I didn't want to get involved in this but this template meddling will leave no one happy by the end of it. Please just make minimal changes. And Mr Choppers the designer field is not the problem, the information is. If disputed it should be cited. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the name of the designer is disputed, it should be removed until sourced; that shouldn't determine its location within the infobox. If the parameter is empty, its location is immaterial, as it won't display. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose placing the "designer" and "related" fields at the top. Please put them at the bottom again. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: What about putting designer in the higher position, but keeping related in the lower position? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * SupportPigsonthewing suggestion. Keep the infobox like the article - with related cars near the bottom like the external links and see also. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Complaint
I have a complaint with Template:Infobox automobile. The Engine field shows up as Engine(s) but the Designer field doesn't show as Designer(s) as is needed for some articles (C3 Picasso and C3 in particular). Can someone change that? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅; thanks for the input. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ...That was quick...Thank you very much Chris! ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you move it back to where it was too? It's at the bottom now and it looks really out of place in the infobox. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's pending resolution of the above discussion. I'd rather not edit-war over this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, can you change it back then? I'd rather it was at the top with the rest of the similar stuff than near the bottom looking out of place. Sorry ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to, but when another editor disagrees it's best to wait until there's been discussion. Hopefully this will be resolved shortly and the sections will be reordered again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully...I don't intend to get involved in the above argument. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent default behavior with |sp= parameter
The |sp= parameter is not behaving consistently. If the parameter is completely omitted from the infobox, the infobox defaults to American English. However, if the parameter is present in the infobox but the data field is left blank, the infobox defaults to British English. (FWIW, entering  or   produces the expected results.) Please update the template coding to produce the same default spelling convention both when the parameter is completely omitted and when the parameter is present but the data field is left blank. (I've updated the template description entry to describe the current state and will change it when the coding is updated.) Thank you. 97.113.119.175 (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * should be fixed now. Frietjes (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 97.113.119.175 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Collapsible infoboxes
In articles with lots of pictures, the infobox often get in the way of the article contents, creating a poorly-formatted document. Incorporating collapsible boxes similar to wiki tables and video game infobox will be greatly appreciated. 142.150.48.185 (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The infoboxes are meant to be an at-a-glance summary of the vehicle. To make them collapsible (ie hidden) would be counter-productive. If the pictures are getting in the way then it probably means there are too many pictures (gratuitous overload of pictures is a common fault on many articles). Some pictures could be deleted or at least arranged better.  Stepho  talk 02:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Fuel tank capacity?
Am I the first to see the lack of this feature? The archives indicate that something was "Done" in 2010 about that, but there's nothing on the Template page indicating how to specify the tank capacity. -- Dandv ( talk &#124; contribs ) 09:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was there but was removed after discussion, I think mainly the reason we cant include all data to the infobox. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 15:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

disp=flip
Why we need the disp=flip parameter on these docs? "Vehicles designed and marketed using Imperial measurements" so these should have inches at 1st not millimetres? -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 20:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For older model lines that spent all, or almost all, of their entire life advertised in imperial measurements (eg most N.American cars and older, defunct UK cars) the article should display imperial first and then metric in brackets. For practically everything else (including Japanese cars advertised in the US with imperial measurements), the article should display as metric first and then imperial in brackets.
 * The fly in the ointment is that some of the references may be in imperial measurements but the article really wants metric first. That's when we use  so that we can put an imperial measurement into  but have it display metric first.
 * I would like this guide to reflect the above instead of hard and fast British vs American.  Stepho  talk 08:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

edit war
Obviously OSX and 174.21.166.165 have a difference of opinion on how this template should be documented. If a change is made and it is then reverted then that implies a discussion is required. Continuously reverting each other accomplishes nothing except making you two angrier and the rest of us dizzy. Please give us your reasons why your way is better - if they're good reasons then you'll probably convince the rest of us to back you up.  Stepho  talk 07:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"Layout" should also indicate transversal or longitudinal position of front engine
The headline says it all. --L.Willms (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Body Style link
The Body Style article no longer exists, so the link is redirected to an article of dubious utility to someone who has clicked on the Body Style link to attempt to understand how the body styles are defined and chosen for this template. It would be better, in my opinion, to not have "Body Style" be a link than to have it redirected as it is now. 65.123.43.130 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

plugin attribute
I'd like to add a "plugin" attribute to allow information on the charger connector - currently the articles on CHAdeMO, SAE J1772 and VDE-AR-E 2623-2-2 get filled with lists of vehicle models ... that might have been okay in the beginning to show which standard is supported by manufacturers but with more and more EVs to come to the market it has no importance anymore but it should be searched across the list of vehicle types. Also one can add in the type info box some information about the maximum charging limits (240/30A) which is very specific for each model as it is dependent on the rectifier being built into the car (and used for different connector types). A global "plugin" would allow to add any piece one might want to give to the attention of the reader. Guidod (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Image2
Regarding, what happened to image2/ interiorimage? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, a load of parameters and classes were removed in that edit. I have restored them. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

New items Steering, Suspension, Brakes?
Wonder if we can have new sections (optional) for:


 * Steering - e.g. rack and pinion, power-assisted, etc.
 * Suspension - e.g. MacPherson struts, double wishbone, leaf springs, anti-sway bars, etc.
 * Brakes - e.g. front disk, rear drum, power-assisted, ABS, regenerating (some hybrids and EVs), etc.
 * Airbags - e.g. number, location

I think this would be quite useful for a variety of readers' uses.

What does everyone think? Facts707 (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think they're all a good idea. The French Wikipedia infobox, which has recently been used as a model for other changes to this infobox, already has them. If the proposal is to be implemented, it might also be a good idea to have separate parameters for front and rear suspension and brakes (or perhaps three parameters for each, so that an editor can choose, eg, front_brakes and rear_brakes or just brakes, as appropriate).  However, I should observe that similar proposals have been made in the past but not implemented, because some editors believe that infoboxes should be short rather than comprehensive. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed.  There's nothing mandatory about using all the available fields, but where there is something interesting to write - and the examples given by Facts707 all make the case for the three you suggest - Steering/Suspension/Brakes - there should be the possibility to include a word or even two in the info box.   There are times and places where hydraulically controlled disc brakes on all four wheels are almost universal.  Go back 80 years and hydraulic was the exception.   Go back 60 years and you were lucky to get discs on the front and drums (still) on the back.   And now?   Well, I guess it depends slightly on where you are, but there are other features not yet universal like the abs and the regenerating energy.  More computer directed gismos are likely to become first novel and then universal in the decade(s) ahead.


 * One other line that I missed when it went away was fuel tank capacity, which reflects many things - engine power, fuel efficiency, fuel prices, distances typically driven. That got taken out a couple of years ago, presumably thanks to someone in a country where fuel is cheap and abundant and not overtaxed....   But those things, too, are not universal for all times and places, and I'd quite like to see it back.


 * Thanks for triggering the discussion.  Success Charles01 (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am open to the addition of these fields, but will let others weigh in first before I make a definite opinion. There are really two ways to look at it: use an infobox to describe how a car is suspended, or put it in prose within the body of the article. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I added another line in the top of the post for "Airbags" - which seem to have gone from two (front occupants) to several including sides in recent years.Facts707 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a useful rule of thumb as to whether a suggested parameter should be added to the infobox is whether the parameter is usually included in the data tables usually seen at the end of road test articles published in motoring magazines. Based on a brief review I did earlier today of some Brooklands Books reprints of road test articles, I can say that most of the parameters suggested above appear to qualify under that rule of thumb.  The exceptions are suspension as a single parameter (all of the data tables I looked at had front suspension listed separately from rear suspension, presumably because the front suspension of an automobile usually differs from the rear suspension) and airbags (but the road tests I was looking at had mostly been originally published before airbags became commonplace).  In response to OSX's comment, I think an infobox can always be used to house this sort of data, and that sometimes a more detailed mention in the prose part of an article is also appropriate.  For example, the prose section of Mercedes-Benz W201:
 * (a) could say that this model had recirculating ball steering because Mercedes-Benz was still persisting with it, even though rack and pinion was the usual type of automobile steering by the time of the model's introduction, and
 * (b) already does say that a notable feature of the W201 was that it was the first model of automobile to be fitted with the then newly developed five link rear suspension. Bahnfrend (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Country Flags in Infobox
Hi, I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on adding the country of assembly's flag to the infobox. VX1NG (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:MOS says that generally flags should not be used in infoboxes, see WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No please; there is enough space consuming clutter in the infoboxes already.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bahnfrend, for pointing that out; I didn't realize it had already been addressed. VX1NG (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

style
please discuss the current style dispute here, rather than engaging in an edit war. Frietjes (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no good reason to modify the title style now, after it has been in place for at least five years and everyone has got used to it. The original edit request only contained a suggestion to implement the lower category headers, similar to those used in the French Wikipedia. The initial edit was done per the bold policy and then it was partially reverted, which is in accordance with the Wikipedia policies. After that, the following reverts were not necessary. This template is used in probably thousands of articles, therefore modifications should be done prudently and only if they are constructive. It also has to be in accordance with the related infoboxes in the project, particularly Template:Infobox company, which is used in the articles of automobile manufacturers.


 * The initial background color was considered too light. It was then proposed a darker version of grey, which I further enlighten a little to a lower level than the initial one and it was accepted by the original editor. Also, the blank lines are not necessary because they add to the size of the template, which is meant to be as small as possible and does not require the most readable structure as the mainspace articles. BaboneCar (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * it appears the main discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, so we should continue the discussion there. Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I marginally prefer the outside name layout per consistency and I don't see an objective reason to change it. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * so why was it changed without further discussion? Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the manufacturer field be removed?
In several thousand articles using the template, data has been entered in the manufacturer field. Most of these entries are unsourced and may be partially or even completely wrong. The discussion on the talk page shows the following: 1. No one of those who have contributed knew what “manufacturer” actually means. One can assume that the same goes for most of those who have used the field (and for most readers, by the way). 2. No one could tell where to find reliable, published sources in order to verify if entries are correct. Even detailed literature about enthusiast’s cars rarely gives conclusive information. 3. No one agreed to remove the parameter from the template. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am against of removing the parameter, because:
 * The manufacturer of a vehicle model is relevant and shall be included in the infobox in order to ease information seeking.
 * The manufacturers in fact are mentioned in verifiable sources in most cases.
 * The ground for the parameter removal is odd in my opinion (excluding the possibility of adding false information – a reason to close the whole Wikipedia?).
 * Alternative proposal
 * The parameter Company shall be added as an alternative parameter for Manufacturer, allowing a more loose definition whenever appropriate. --Gwafton (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As suggested by MrScorch6200, I am withdrawing the RfC. There seem to be numerous users who know how to handle the problem. That’s great news, let’s get down to work. I (partially) agree with Darx9url’s statement, the first step must be “to clarify exactly what should be in the field and how to find reliable sources for the information”. Any suggestions? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to removing the parameter. It is a reasonable parameter to have and just because it may occasionally be misused or contain incorrect information is not a reason to remove it. As noted in the preceding discussion, just because a parameter exists does not mean it has to be used and should, like every other similar parameter in every template, be left unfilled if a verifiable source is not available. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose removing manufacturer field. It's something a reader would expect to see. If some are using it incorrectly, I suggest adding documentation to the template page to clarify exactly what should be in the field and how to find reliable sources for the information. Darx9url (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal of the field. Fix the data. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would like to suggest that you snowball close this RfC as "decision was to keep the manufacturer parameter." Maybe let the RfC run for a few more days, though. MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 13:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal, As noted above editors should simply fix it. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  00:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Couple Questions
Hi, couple questions how should supercharged hybrid vehicles be addressed? See Infiniti Q60 for example. Second, question could there be a way that the following information can be displayed in the infobox on vehicles that have non-hybrid/electric variants: My thought was to have a way to enable a heading for these specs that says "Hybrid Model Only" or "Electric Model only" etc. that can be enabled or disabled depending if vehicle has non-hybrid/electric versions. Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * motor =
 * drivetrain =
 * battery =
 * range =
 * electric_range =
 * charging =