Template talk:Infobox automobile/Archive 6

WP:V vs. Manufacturer
Template documentation says: “The manufacturer field states the company, division, or subsidiary responsible for the vehicle's engineering and development, which is not necessarily the entity assembling or marketing the vehicle.” I’m wondering where this information can be found for each and every model, in order to comply with WP:V. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody seems to know, neither do I. It will be best to have the manufacturer field removed from the infobox. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it would not; your initial question is based on the false premise that the information needs to be provided "for each and every model". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The premise isn’t false, because there is data entered in more than 50 % of the automobile articles that use the infobox; and it turns out to be wrong in many cases. That’s because contributors feel they need to complete the infobox and then simply guess who could be the manufacturer. Where should anyone check if such an assertion is right? Example: According to Opel Corsa, the manufacturer is Opel. Where would you check whether this is correct or not? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The premise is false, because we do not need to provide the information "for each and every model". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I haven’t made my point clear enough. To date, the information has already been provided, admittedly not for each and every model, but for maybe 4,000 models, maybe even more. I have not said that the information “needs to be provided” for each and every model; I just want to know if it’s possible to verify the information that has already been entered. Perhaps I should rather have written: “I’m wondering where this information can be found for each and every model that has data entered in the manufacturer field” – although I’m not sure if this really makes the problem more manageable now. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This argument is nonsense. The manufacturer can be found in most cases and this should of course have a source. In many cases the source is not mentioned or the data might be false, which should be of course corrected properly, but the manufacturer is definitely relevant information. --Gwafton (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well done, Gwafton. Reverting an edit that had been announced for over a month and calling my argument „nonsense“ without answering any of my questions… The manufacturer can just not be found in most cases, so you can’t even tell which data is wrong and which one is not. Why don’t you go ahead and find out the manufacturer of the Opel Corsa, if it’s so easy? It’s quite a popular car, so this should not be too difficult. And don’t forget to mention your source. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * if you are having problems with the sources for a particular article, then the place to address it would be in the article in question. Frietjes (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your hint, Frietjes, but I’m not having problems with the sources for a particular article. I might as well have asked for the manufacturer of the Monteverdi High Speed, for example. It’s probably just as unverifiable as most others. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just explained that the incorrect information can be corrected and sourced properly. I don't find it as an improvement if you just eliminate one chance to tell incorrect information. A bit the same as removing traffic lights for the reason that no one could drive through red lights any more. You can find a source for the producer of Opel Corsa if you are interested in Opel Corsa, I am not. But I am interested in some other car models and removing the manufacturer from the template causes harm in those ones. I haven't met problems at finding the manufacturer's name in those articles which I have contributed. --Gwafton (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't support the removal of a infobox field that is in use in almost every car article. If you can't find a source for the manufacturer of a particular car, just don't make use of that field. It is ridiculous to claim that this is impossible to find this information as that is typically untrue. The Corsa being an Opel would suggest it's manufacturer is Opel. This is common sense; but, this is not always the case. In case it matters, the Corsa is manufactured by Opel, and I verified this "impossible to find" information in under 2 minutes on Google . OSX (talk • contributions) 01:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My mother used to tell me that "there aren't any stupid questions". That may be true, but there are definitely silly concerns. BTW, usually the name of a car indicates manufacturer: that's what it's there for.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  09:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I’m beginning to wonder why it is recommended to start a new discussion on the talk page before making a possibly controversial edit, when almost all of you only show up after the edit has actually been carried out.
 * If removing a parameter from the template causes harm, then the article is not well written, as infoboxes “should primarily contain material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article”. Besides, you have misunderstood something: I have asked for the “manufacturer” of the Opel Corsa, not for its “producer”. This is this and that is that.
 * The infoboxes may include footnotes if they contain such information that is nowhere else in the article. By the way, today I drove my Opel Corsa B to petrol station to add oil and check the petrol. I checked the plate under the bonnet and it says: Hersteller — Manufacturer: Opel. How should we tell this in the infobox then? --Gwafton (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The source you found doesn’t say anything about the “manufacturer”. Maybe you’ll try and spend another 2 minutes on Google.
 * “Usually”, that’s very precise information. And “unusually”? Why do you insist on keeping the parameter in the end, if “usually” the name of the car already says it all? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this discussion take a new tack? I think the real problem is what the infobox's documentation claims is the meaning of the word "manufacturer". If you look at the article manufacturing, you will notice very quickly that it defines "manufacture" in a very different way from the way the infobox's documentation defines it. Specifically, the article equates manufacturing with production, whereas the documentation equates it with engineering or industrial design, which the "manufacturing" article says are distinct from manufacturing. Now let me comment on some specific examples. The Mercedes-Benz G-Class is, I believe, designed by Mercedes-Benz, but has always been produced by the company now known as Magna Steyr (described in its own article as "an automobile manufacturer"), and over the years has been marketed under various marque names. So which company is the G-Class's manufacturer? The editors of the article "manufacturing" would probably say "Magna Steyr", but the infobox says "Mercedes-Benz". Perhaps the "true" answer is "both". Similar comments could be made about the Porsche 986, which was designed by Porsche and, in many cases, produced by Valmet Automotive (desribed in its own article as a "service provider"). I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem. Perhaps it would involve some rewriting of the "manufacturing" article, which, at present, is not well referenced. But for all I know, the reliable sources (whatever they are) may even reveal that the real meaning of "manufacturing" is something different again. In any case, once the present problem of multiple (ie at least two) and conflicting definitions of "manufacturing" can be solved, it may be appropriate for the infobox to be edited to link the "manufacturer" parameter to the "manufacturing" article. But I certainly wouldn't support deleting it altogether. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. What should be used instead of manufacturer then? Just company? Fisker Karma is a good example about the problematics of the term – Fisker does not manufacture cars at all but purchases the service from outside. --Gwafton (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that the G-class should list Steyr-Puch/Magna Steyr as the manufacturer, and the Fisker Karma is interesting for the same reason. As are NUMMI products and other things. But, these are interesting precisely because they are unusual. Normally there are no concerns and in any case I see no reason to remove the field.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While some of you guys are quite impolite, you are very funny at the same time – except for OSX, who apparently has already left the discussion. What a pity. Maybe he has realised that he has absolutely no idea what it’s all about.
 * Bahnfrend is already one step further: He has recognised some kind of a problem and admits that he doesn’t know how to define “manufacturer”. But at the same time, he feels sure that he wouldn’t support deleting it altogether. (Seriously, how important can a parameter possibly be, when you even don’t know what it’s there for?)
 * Gwafton is even further ahead: Although he is not interested in the Opel Corsa, he has recently discovered the manufacturer of his own Opel Corsa B by opening its bonnet. Congrats! Unfortunately, the plate under the bonnet of your car is not what we would call a reliable, published source; and even if it was, we’d still have to wonder if Opel is the manufacturer of every Corsa B. (SPOILER: The answer is “no”. Prove me wrong if you can.)
 * But the funniest of all is Mr.choppers, who really thinks that it’s up to him to decide who is the manufacturer of the G-Class. I had a good laugh. Ask Gwafton, maybe he lets you have a look at the Builder's plate of his car, you’ll learn something… or you can read about the VIN, that should also help.
 * Concerning the G-Class, I don’t know if there have been several manufacturers over time (as for the Opel Corsa B), but one thing’s for sure, there is at least one vehicle (a 230 GE from 1991, to be specific) whose manufacturer is the Mercedes-Benz AG (WMI is “WDB”), as you can see on its builder’s plate here (scroll down to see all pictures). -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like all of us have the consensus that manufacturer as a term is not sufficiently precise, or at least not applicable in every car model article. On the other hand, most of us want to tell in the infobox which company is behind it. My suggestion is that we replace the title by company and in case the assembly is done by another company (Magna Steyr, Valmet Automotive, Karmann, some joint venture or whatever), it shall be told in section assembly. Have you got any other suggestions? --Gwafton (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * “which company is behind it” – behind what? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just tell a term that you suggest using instead of manufacturer. --Gwafton (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to rename the parameter, I would have said/done so. But there already is the name field for the brand and the assembly field for the producing company. What else should there be? The parameter is useless, unless you demand a wikilink to the brand in the infobox. I don’t think this is necessary (because there always is a wikilink in the introduction of an article), but when I had the same discussion about “Hersteller” on de:Vorlage:Infobox PKW-Modell, that was just the result: “Hersteller” was more or less renamed “Marke” (which sounds easier as it actually was). Things were a lot less complicated when “constructeur” was renamed “marque” on fr:Modèle:Infobox Automobile, by the way. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In many cases the name of the make is very different than the producer. I got another idea: what if we just add a parameter: manufactured for. It would be the correct term in case of contract manufacturing/CKD, joint venture (such as Toyota Aygo) etc.


 * The German speaking Wikipedia has probably the worst vehicle infobox templates I have seen in the whole Wikipedia project and I would use them as a warning example. They are not contributor friendly and neither reader friendly. You can only tell there very narrow data and including any additional information at any parameter is made impossible. Therefore, they don't serve information seeking purposes. Those infoboxes are a result of deep thorough discussions and remind me of this joke: camel is a horse that is made after a committee proposal. My point is that we shall keep the infoboxes flexible for all applicable vehicle types and allow including all relevant main facts and figures; narrowing the possibility of telling essential information for whatever semantic reason leads to a problem, not to a solution. --Gwafton (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I’m well aware that the car infoboxes on de.wp (there once were five of them, one was deleted on my initiative, four remain) are terrible, but community over there is… “difficult” to say the least. I know what I’m talking about. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't support the so-called consensus. I think Brakehorsepower has hit on the solution.  The parameter should remain as "manufacturer", but the documentation should be amended to say that the manufacturer is normally the one identified in the WMI and that any other entity contracted by the manufacturer to produce or assemble the vehicle (eg Magna Steyr, Valmet) should be identified in the "assembly" parameter. Bahnfrend (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That leads me back to my initial question: “I’m wondering where this information can be found for each and every model that has data entered in the manufacturer field.” Is there any other possibility than checking the builder’s plate (or the paperwork) to find out the WMI of a specific car? If not, we’re not able to provide this information. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The answer is that you find it in (a) reliable source(s). For example, the Mercedes-Benz G-Class: "... Daimler-Benz joined forces with ... Steyr-Daimler-Puch ... and the two companies developed the new vehicle jointly.  They also established ... GFG ... to build it, remaining equal partners in the venture until 1981, when Steyr bought out the Daimler-Benz stake in GFG.  Since then, Mercedes G-Wagens have been built by Steyr under contract to the German company ..." . Bahnfrend (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a proof that Mercedes-Benz is the manufacturer of every G-Class. I can’t find the expression “manufacturer” in the text, and even if: Which is the so-called “German company”, is it the one that is mentioned throughout the text, “Daimler-Benz”? And what about the cars built before 1981 and since 1994?
 * Literature doesn’t care about the whole manufacturer thing in general, because it is not that relevant. As you have an advanced level of German, you might want to read this article about the Lada Taiga: Since lately, the manufacturer of the cars sold in Germany is “Lada Deutschland”, the German importer. The cars get a different VIN, with a German (!) WMI, but they are practically identical with the ones that were sold before (different wiper arms, different door sill cover).
 * As you can see, literally anyone could be the manufacturer, even the local importer… so what’s the point with that parameter? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is unlike to find a such source that says some car model being exclusively manufactured by this and that producer. Just think of car producers of prior to the 1920s – new small producers started and others closed and it was not uncommon, that after one producer closed down or changed its line of business, another one bought semi finished vehicles and parts and built a small series of automobiles, without being recorded in any surviving documents. You will not find a such source that claims Daimler being the manufacturer of every G-Class and with the same principle you can question any information in Wikipedia. What does not exist is not necessarily mentioned in any sources. --Gwafton (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In answer to Brakehorsepower, I have the following comments. The example I gave is just that, an example.  It indicates that the G-Class was manufactured by both MB and Steyr from 1979 to 1981, and by MB from 1981 to 1994.  For more up-to-date information, you just need to look at more recent reliable sources, eg: "Das Typenschild trug als Hersteller zunächst [ab 1979] die aufschrift GFG.  Das änderte sich im Herbst 1981, nach qualitativen Anlaufproblemen.  Daimler-Benz zog sich aus der GFG zurück, die Zusammenarbeit beider Firmen wurde rechtlich neu strukturiert.  Bis heute baut ... [Steyr] ... den G für Mercedes im Lohnauftrag." .  The bibliography I recently added to the G-Class article cites the revised, 2013, edition of this book, which no doubt says the same thing.  There's also little doubt that there is a reliable source (perhaps in Russian) providing similar information about the Lada Taiga.  It's just a matter of finding it.  As far as the German WMI for the Taiga is concerned, the web page you've linked to your post makes clear that it's a special arrangement to enable the German importer to import 1,000 cars that don't conform with the strict collision safety regulations applying to cars made in or imported into Germany in greater numbers.  So the "manufacturer" of those 1,000 cars, and only those 1,000 cars, is the German importer. Bahnfrend (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * “with the same principle you can question any information in Wikipedia”: Yes, of course. (We even should.) This is just why I referred to WP:V in the headline and removed the parameter. It is unlikely to find sources, we agree on that. But if there are no sources, we should not try to give information by guessing. Wikipedia is not a quiz game.
 * “So the "manufacturer" of those 1,000 cars, and only those 1,000 cars, is the German importer”: Yes, of course. I don’t understand why you are underlining that number. Lada Deutschland is one of the manufacturers of the Lada Taiga and would therefore have to be named.
 * I don’t really like to have the G-Class as an example, because this model is not representative at all (in fact, it is an enthusiast’s car, and therefore the amount of literature is above average), but we can go on with that. So, can you give a conclusive enumeration of the manufacturers? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You picked up my comment out of its context. What I mean is that with the same principle you can question the existence of any piece of information in Wikipedia. How about this one: Common dandelion is well known for its yellow flower heads. Should we remove the text if it does not refer to any page that states the dandelion flowers being only yellow, not any other colour in any case? Theoretically there could be also red or purple dandelions. Did you get my point? --Gwafton (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because I don’t see the connection to my question. I have not asked for something that does not exist, quite the contrary. Our articles currently state that (only) Mercedes-Benz is the manufacturer of the G-Class, (only) Opel is the manufacturer of the Corsa etc., so I request reliable, published sources that say: “Mercedes-Benz has always been the manufacturer of the G-Class”, “Opel has always been the manufacturer of the Corsa” etc.
 * Have a look at WP:UNSOURCED for an answer to your last question: “Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source […]” -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no word only with the infobox parameter. You can add there those manufacturers which you know have produced the car model in question and for which you have reliable sources. If you later find out that there is another producer which you didn't know before, you can include that too, with a reliable source of course. I still fail seeing the problem. The readers of Wikipedia or any other media are expected to be able to filter information, rather than reading them as holy scriptures. --Gwafton (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time: There are virtually no “reliable sources”. You seem to ignore the fact that you all have come up with one (!) single valid source in this whole edit section: The one from Bahnfrend (Storz, 2008) which says that GFG has been the manufacturer of the G-Class from 1979 until autumn of 1981. Nothing about 1981 until today, nothing about the Opel Corsa, nothing about the Monteverdi High Speed or the Porsche 986. In the end, nothing at all to enter in any of the manufacturer fields, except for “GFG (1979–1981)”. I think this discussion has gone on long enough to prove that: a) most people (even those who are interested in cars) have no idea what “manufacturer” really means, therefore the subject is of very low importance; b) contrary to popular belief, there are very few reliable sources that even mention the subject; c) if they ever do, their information is likely to be incomplete. Let’s put it the other way: In case you find a reliable source about the manufacturer of a model, feel free to add it to the text (I would appreciate if Bahnfrend mentioned GFG in the article of the G-Class, by the way); but to get rid of countless entries that are unsourced and partially or completely wrong (just have a look at present-days Alfa Romeo’s and Lancia’s models), the parameter has to be removed from the template. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The parameter Manufacturer must not be removed from the template. Correcting of false information with reliable sources shall be the goal, rather than eliminating the possibility of including such. --Gwafton (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please consider WP:DRN. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: It appears that this boils down to the parameter name being misleading, in that it diverges from the /doc description. The template doc description is not really applicable to a manufacturer (in any normal sense) but rather to a automobile designer. While such a bureau is often owned by the same company which owns the factories, the distinction should be clear. Products of a given design may be built in any number of factories, usually depending on the economics of international distribution and scale. It would be unusual indeed for multiple designers to share responsibility for the top-level design, even though local variations of a world car are usually warranted for reasons of market, regulation, or production. It might be simpler to rename the parameter to either "Make" or "Designer" and adjust the /doc accordingly. Alternatively, "Lead manufacturer" would be the factory which turned out serial number 1 of a model. The discussion above of the G-series also seems to gloss over the point that the whole series is not one product but a series. Were the models in fact the work of independent designers and built in independent factories owned by independent companies? LeadSongDog  come howl!  16:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion was closed as out-of scope of DRN, and creating a RfC has been suggested. LeadSongDog, maybe you’ll want to post your contribution again in the new section below, thanks. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I knew that nothing was going to happen… It's been your decision to keep the parameter, now it’s your task to provide a verifiable definition. (Shouldn’t be a problem with all the expertise you have.) You can be sure that I will delete the documentation and consequently the parameter otherwise. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what is the problem with verifiable sources. Therefore, would you please explain me with an example? I have started this heavy vehicle article: Sisu K-44 and I am responsible of all the sources used in the article. Now, please tell me, why the source I have used for the "manufacturer" can not be reliable. Tell me clearly what makes the source dodgy or suspicious. --Gwafton (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I’m currently asking for a reliable source for template documentation (“The manufacturer field states the company, division, or subsidiary responsible for the vehicle's engineering and development […]”); but never mind, I can once again try to explain the problem. I don’t have a particular concern about the reliability of your sources, but are you sure that they really claim that “Oy Suomen Autoteollisuus Ab” is written on the builder’s plate? Can you give a quotation, just like Bahnfrend did with GFG and the G-Class (“Das Typenschild trug als Hersteller zunächst [ab 1979] die aufschrift [sic!] GFG.” / translation: “The builder’s plate bore the inscription GFG as a manufacturer at first [from 1979].”)? I have rarely found this kind of information concerning bog-standard cars. It may be different with enthusiast’s cars (or Finnish lorries), but those would be exceptions to the rule. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The source just states the manufacturer and says nothing about the plate. Besides, the plate can be sometimes wrong. For example, when Suomen Autoteollisuus changed its name Sisu Auto in 1981 they probably still used the old name plates for some time before they got new ones. --Gwafton (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read Builder's plate and VIN again. We’re still not talking about the same thing. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Forget about VIN, it is not applicable in older cars. The article says that the nomenclature was in international use from 1981 but probably it was put into practice gradually as I used to have a 1982 car without VIN. Besides, the parameter description says nothing about VIN. --Gwafton (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the parameter description might be just as wrong as the parameter entries; this is why I’m asking for sources… I have pointed the VIN article out to you because it also tells something about the role of the manufacturer, which did not change in the 1980s. The term manufacturer has always been used for the company whose name is on the builder’s plate (your 1982 car may not have had a WMI, but it had a manufacturer nonetheless). By implication, you may not use the term manufacturer for anything else but the company whose name is on the builder’s plate. You have said that “the plate can be sometimes wrong” – how would you even get to know who’s the right manufacturer, if it was not written on the builder’s plate? Where else do you find the information? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You may find the information from literature. A typical case when the plate information might be false is acquisition or change of company name. --Gwafton (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you give some (sourced) examples? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need evidence that company names change sometimes. I used to work for a company that builds large machines and the company name changed (a bit) during my time there. It was announced in an annual management meeting, coming into force directly. We did not have new name plates immediately and for some time after that the plates had the old company name. Similar cases have happened during the history of automobile production.


 * I hope you don't mind if I end this discussion here. The decision was to keep the manufacturer parameter and there is no need to fill this discussion page with chatting about it unless you come up with a new suggestion. --Gwafton (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don’t mind. No more talk about “literature” or “reliable sources” and then failing to provide them… I think I can cope with that.
 * I won’t come up with a new suggestion. “All content must be verifiable”, this includes template documentation. “Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source.” That’s what’s going to happen, unless YOU come up with a new suggestion. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I am finding it very difficult to discuss this over and over again with people who don’t know what it’s actually about (and don’t seem to have read through the discussion, either). Once more: You will most likely find a builder's plate under the bonnet of your car. This plate states, amongst others, who is the manufacturer of your car. Please read carefully: The precise term for this is MANUFACTURER. Nothing else. Concerning cars (and not only cars), you may not use the term manufacturer for anything else but the company whose name is on the builder’s plate. Do we agree that authors may not use technical terms ad libitum? Template documentation says that the manufacturer is “the company, division, or subsidiary responsible for the vehicle's engineering and development”. In other words: Template documentation says that the company whose name is on the builder’s plate of your car is “the company, division, or subsidiary responsible for the vehicle's engineering and development”. I have asked for a source for that claim. Template documentation gives an unsourced definition for the technical term manufacturer. I don’t need a consensus to remove this definition; I am removing it because the definition is unsourced. Add a reliable source to prove that the company whose name is on the builder’s plate is responsible for the vehicle’s engineering and development. If not, I may remove the definition, and – consequently – the parameter itself, according to the principles of WP:V. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * it appears to consensus here is not to remove the field, but to remove the information when it is not properly sourced. in fact, when this conclusion was presented above, you said "Sure, I don't mind". if there is a problem with the documentation not properly documenting the usage, then we should change it.  however, I see no consensus for removing the parameter from the documentation altogether. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Gwafton declared: “I hope you don't mind if I end this discussion here.” My answer to this statement was: “Sure, I don’t mind.” It had nothing to do with any conclusion.
 * “if there is a problem with the documentation not properly documenting the usage, then we should change it”: It’s been four weeks since I have asked to do so. Will it ever happen? I don’t think so.
 * “however, I see no consensus for removing the parameter from the documentation altogether.”: Neither do I. But since nobody seems willing to/capable of giving a reliable source, I go for WP:UNSOURCED: “Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without […] a reliable source.” There’s no need to tell me perpetually that most people want to keep the parameter – that does not relieve them of their duty to provide verifiable content. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion about "manufacturer" field
Here is the link to the ANI discussion. Logos5557 (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

New items Steering, Suspension, Brakes? (revived)
(Revived this section from Archive 5 - it was prematurely archived by User:Lowercase_sigmabot_III on 2014 June 13 after having been started on 2014 Jan 28 and last updated 2014 Feb 1.) 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.

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)
 * Airbags - e.g. number, location
 * 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)


 * Based on several positive comments and none opposed, it looks like we should proceed to add these. I will add them to the sandbox one or more possibly more at a time. Facts707 (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Capacity field
For the most part, this field makes no sense as it stands. It seems to be added in from when the bus version of the infobox was merged in. I'm not sure how it got lumped into the powertrain listings, because "powertrain capacity" would be most similar to engine displacement, which is already disclosed when an engine is listed in the infobox (in typical cases). However, having the ability to list seating capacity in the infobox (in the Body and Chassis fields, perhaps?) would be a lot more useful? (this would be seen in the bus articles typically, as well as road vehicles that are notable for their seating capacity.--SteveCof00My Suggestion box is open 09:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree; capacity (carrying weight), "cargo weight", or whatever it's called in Europe, (in addition to seating capacity), is a useful and necessary field. In the US, we use the term "payload". This by definition is excluded from the curb weight. Can a template expert please put it back in, with the terminology selected by "sp="?


 * Although the average consumer doesn't usually think about it, and it might be hard to find in most cases, it is a significant feature, and I could use it for the Lunar Roving Vehicle, which amazingly enough was designed for a payload capacity over twice its curb weight! JustinTime55 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this has been discussed before in some of the archives (but on the other hand, this template covers a wider variety of vehicles than in the past...) However, regardless of the eventual outcome, it would be a better idea to list this as part of the Body/Chassis fields (overall dimensions) rather than the Powertrain (engine, transmission).  --SteveCof00My Suggestion box is open 10:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a sample and a question, Please excuse me for introducing this into the mix:

Peter Horn User talk 14:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In this sample the capacity refers to the engine displacement. Peter Horn User talk 17:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Capacity" should in the case of trucks mean "payload". In the case of passenger vehicles the number of passengers, seated and standing. And where applicable both the number of occupants and the payload. Peter Horn User talk 22:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way I revised the infobox in Leyland Royal Tiger Worldmaster accordingly. Peter Horn User talk 00:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as what should go here, I'm thinking that engine displacement is a moot point. (going by the conventions, it is already listed alongside the engine type).  However, as far as listing (payload) capacity, it may be of use.  However, it will see a variety of use, as trucks using this infobox will list it by weight (lbs/kg) while buses and cars will see it listed by number of occupants (although cars will likely not use this, unless it is particularly unusual compared to other similar vehicles)--SteveCof00My Suggestion box is open 06:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The payload (capacity) equals the gross vehicle weight rating minus the tare weight or the curb weight. I hope  this is of some help. Peter Horn User talk 15:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Template:infobox locomotive is interesing. I'm providing a reduced sample. Peter Horn User talk 15:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * fuelcap         = N/A Peter Horn User talk 16:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Production numbers?
How should production numbers be expressed in this infobox? Particularly for rarer models where it may be only a handful.

A series of changes are being made at present to discard these numbers from the production field, as that "should only be used for dates", yet where else do they belong? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The infobox is not intended to be used for production figures. These are normally relegated to with the prose or to a sales/production table (if there is the detail to warrant this) towards the end of the article. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Then the infobox should be expanded to support them, per support for this at WT:CARS. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Why should it be expanded? This information can easily be covered in other ways. Not everything is to go into the infobox, nor is it practical to cram in all the fields imaginable. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to give one example from today, here's the restoration of models within an overall model. With the multiple infoboxes, it's immediately clear that one of these was the mass-production "cooking" model, others were the specialist racers. That's an important distinction to convey, it's best done through the infobox. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Engine and Transmission year range in info boxes
This is a topic that has come up recently with some vandalism. I posted a talk page [|question here]. The issue came up when an editor acting in good faith removed the year range for various Corvette engines in the various generations. Older American cars in particular were known for having a large number of engine and transmission combinations. The 3rd gen Corvette had 21 engine options by my count! With so many I did think it was nice when the info box included the year range for each motor and transmission. Even in versions that have fewer options I think it is nice. For example the current Wrangler getting a new motor as part of a mid-life refresh. The vandal wanted to add the content back. The good faith editor was following the template here. Should we consider allowing engine/powertrain date ranges as part of the template? An alternative would be a table. Such a table makes sense in extreme cases like the 3rd gen Corvette but may not make sense in cases where there were say 4 motors over one generation (mid-cycle motor updates). Springee (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Seating Capacity
I'm going to give a whirl at adding seating capacity to this. I've made the edit and would appreciate review from people with more direct template experience. Thanks! Brycen (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Automobile drag coefficient
Add Automobile drag coefficient to the template? --Cornellier (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see it being useful for a small number of cars but for most cars it will just be clutter. I'm inclined to leave it out.  Stepho  talk 22:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason it cannot go into the prose? OSX (talk • contributions) 01:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * OSX the reason is it's not prose. it's numbers. It's one of the most significant factors in car body design. Crucial for wind noise and fuel economy. E.g. it could go in the template with range, electric range, charging. There's already data in WP for e.g. at Automobile drag coefficient --Cornellier (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The infobox is bloated enough as it is. It has long had the issue of "feature creep". We have had many proposals to add extra fields, e.g. brakes, suspension and safety ratings, fuel economy, performance numbers, and sales figures. These requests almost always get turned down due to fear of additional bloat. You mentioned range, electric range, and charging—I am not a fan of these being in there either. They were annoyingly added when the electric vehicle template was merged with the regular template and I cannot be bothered fighting a long battle on this one. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * According to H:IB infoboxes are meant to be kept minimal. --Cornellier (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Assembly didn't show up properly
When I edit Sixth generation (1997–2002) section of Honda Accord I found out Assembly line wouldn't show up after Guangzhou. Why?-- John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 02:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There were two assembly fields. Probably you were editing one but the other one was being displayed. I have cleaned it up a little. Notice the intelligent use of spaces and newlines makes the intent much clearer. The old code was doing its best to hide things from you.  Stepho  talk 08:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)