Template talk:Infobox automobile/Archive 7

Manufacturer use
There is currently inconsistent use of the Manufacturer field. Some use the field to list the parent company of the car, others list the brand selling it. See Jaguar XF and Land Rover Discovery for a perfect example: the former lists Jaguar Land Rover while the latter lists Land Rover. I interpreted the instructions to suggest that both should be included (e.g., MINI (BMW)), though that can be cumbersome.

I'd like to clarify the language in the Template Documentation, but I'd like to see what the community thinks first. Should the Manufacturer be the brand selling the car? Should it be the parent company? Or both?

Here are some example uses:

-heat_fan1 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the template doc is already clear, the manufacturer is "the company, division, or subsidiary responsible for the vehicle's engineering and development". The problem is understanding the car company structures. Both MINI and Rolls-Royce are brands owned by BMW, but whereas MINI is only a brand of BMW (with no plants or assets), Rolls-Royce is also a subsidiary company (with its own plant). So the manufacturer of MINI cars should be BMW, whereas the manufacturer of Rolls-Royce cars should be Rolls-Royce. Similarly (but only since the start of 2013) Jaguar and Land Rover are now brands only, of cars manufactured by Jaguar Land Rover. -- de Facto (talk). 21:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Understood. To the reader, what's the value of doing it differently like that. Is there value in identifying a legal entity versus an intangible asset (i.e., a brand)? That's what we need to decide here.


 * I think it should be done consistently. I don't see value in distinguishing between a brand and a subsidiary (e.g., Mini versus Rolls). There was previously a Parent Company field that was removed, and I think the combination of Brand and Parent Company (e.g., Mini (BMW)) gives the reader all of the information they'd want. -- heat_fan1 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There seem to be many different views as to the readership to be catered for. If this is an encyclopedia then it should provide information and it has to be accurate. Broad generalisations might suit some but if so why build an encyclopedia for them - the casually interested? There is plenty of information lying around or on tv or on the net that is (usually very) roughly speaking near the actual facts, why make a Wikipedia? Eddaido (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Put the parent_company field back. Easy. We didn't this on infobox motorcycle and it hasn't been a problem since. Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, what difference does it make that Mini has no plants or assets? Is all on paper isn't it? A factory where the cars are made exists. The quibble is over the name of the legal entity that owns it. What is so vital about subsidiary status? Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is common misunderstanding about company structures and this often causes issues as identified above. The main difference here seems to be brands or marques that are just badges used by another company vs subsidiary companies that have their own structure (and irrespective if they have a parent company or not). I'd be quite happy for Wikipedia to cut through the marketing and be accurate so all current Mercedes-Benz would be built by Daimler and all Minis would be built by BMW. Warren (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I don't think readers, regardless of their sophistication, care to distinguish between a brand's legal status in an article about a specific car. That detail is covered in the article about the brand.


 * Past discussions around this field have focused on the distinction between a marketing brand and assembler (e.g., Magna Steyr vs Mercedes-Benz as the manufacturer of the G-Class). That was resolved by putting the assembler in the Assembly field. -- heat_fan1 (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Have their own structure"? What does that mean? If this is such a vital difference, how come none of these articles actually explain it? Like we have Plant Oxford and the Goodwood plant. What's the difference. Oxford "is owned by BMW (UK) Manufacturing Limited (a subsidiary of BMW)." While "Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of BMW". I can see why it's such a common misunderstanding. I don't get it at all. If this is as important as you say, our articles should clearly tell readers about it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The difference between Plant Oxford and the Goodwood plant is that the former is a BMW plant whereas the latter is a Rolls-Royce plant. I agree that the distinction between the marque (brand) and the manufacturer can often be a subtle one though. Perhaps we need to rethink the headings in the infobox. Most car models have a "marque" (or "brand") as well as a "model" and most are manufactured either by the marque's parent company or by a named subsidiary of it. -- de Facto (talk). 07:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The assembler of vehicles are to be listed under the Assembly field. Using Minis as an example, both the Clubman and Countryman would have the same Manufacturer, but Assembly for the Clubman says "UK: Oxford (Plant Oxford)" while for the Countryman it's "Austria (Magna Steyr)." Again, the question at hand is whether there is value in making the distinction in legal status (i.e., brand vs subsidiary) in an article about a specific vehicle. I do not see the value. I think the Manufacturer should be the brand that markets a car (which my unscientific polling suggests is the common use in the US), with the parent company identified the way the template suggests (parenthetically) or via a Parent Company field. One last suggestion: Change Manufacturer to Make. In the US and UK (at least; I can't speak for other areas), the Make and Model are commonly used to identify a car. Is "Make" a suitable replacement for "Manufacturer?" -- heat_fan1 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand why it matters that the owner of the Oxford plant is a BMW subsidiary named BMW (UK) Manufacturing Limited and the owner of Goodwood is some other BMW subsidiary named Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited. If they changed the name of BMW (UK) Manufacturing Limited (a BMW subsidiary) to Mini (a BMW subsidiary) would that mean that Mini now has "its own structure"? What structure? Saying Oxford is a BMW plant whereas the Goodwood is a Rolls-Royce plant is just a matter of attitude or prejudice. There are no verifiable facts, such as you could put into a Wikipedia article, that could defend this opinion. If anyone has quality citations for this weird claim, please put them into the articles on these subjects so the world can at last be enlightened. Some of this is based on misleading statements like "In 2000, Rover Group was broken up by BMW, with BMW retaining the Mini brand" in Mini (marque). BMW didn't merely retain the Mini brand: they retained intellectual property, physical plant, tools, prototypes, and most importantly, employees. All the same things they own at Rolls Royce. Back to the infobox, normal readers expect these products to have a two-part name:  . Synonyms for brand are make, or marque. Use them interchangeably. might be owned by literally any company. The BMW Motorrad brand's parent company is BMW. Yamaha Motor's parent is Yamaha corp. The Kawasaki motorcycle brand has been passed around from multiple divisions over the years, but the parent ultimately is Kawasaki Heavy Industries.  This stuff is not complicated. Going back to the original claim that there is a "common misunderstanding", I don't think so. The general public understands this perfectly well. What they don't understand is these distinction without a difference, Mini and Rolls being a perfect example, because the distinction isn't real. It's a lot of doubletalk. When you try to convince readers it is real, you end up with this manufactured confusion. Just tell it like it is and nobody will be confused. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Dennis, I'm actually in total agreement with you. That's why I'm suggesting clarifying the instructions for  to describe the "brand" or replace it with . What do you think of one of those? -- heat_fan1 (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Or better yet, deprecate manufacturer entirely because it can be interpreted as meaning the assembly plant name/owner/location/???. Replace manufacturer with make, and the alias |brand= and |marque= to |make= . Then add a parent company infobox so that we have someplace to put that information. Do that and I think things will be fine after that. Along the same lines, |assembly= can be replaced with |assembly_countries= (plain list) so that it's clear it's only a list of places where the cars are made, not a brand, company, subsidiary, or owner field.  But that's a lot of changes. Your suggestion is easy and we should do it now.  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Instead of changing the template, I decided to update the documentation. It now says that Manufacturer refers to "the brand under which the vehicle is sold," while still allowing the parent company to follow it in parentheses. I think this is a good solution to try that won't disrupt the template on existing documents. Feel free to get crazy updating articles! -- heat_fan1 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I changed it back for now because that modification meant the brand had to be entered twice - once in the 'name' parameter and again in the 'manufacturer' parameter and in the latter case was incorrectly labelled as "Manunacturer" on the output. 07:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)-- de Facto (talk).


 * Fair point. I had missed that the brand is to be listed with the "Name." My mistake. Since that's the case, I really don't understand the value of this "Manufacturer" field. What, then, is "Manufacturer" trying to convey if it's not the actual manufacturer (e.g., don't put Magna Steyr in this field)? I really don't see any value in the way it's currently used, with dependence on the legal status of an entity. It seems that many editors don't understand the distinction, and even as an informed reader, I don't always get the distinction. What we have is something that's currently very inconsistent and confusing. Should Manufacturer instead describe the Parent Company (see Dodge Viper)? -- heat_fan1 (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think the template needs the sort of changes that have been suggested. The template documentation gives a clear example of a similar structure to that of BMW/Mini: Lexus. Lexus is described as a "luxury division" but many of its vehicles are manufactured through facilities owned directly by the parent company Toyota (or other Toyota subsidiaries). The sales are managed by the local Toyota subsidiaries in most countries. So, following the Lexus example, the manufacuter field should be listed as Mini (BMW). The infobox is not really the best out there, but I don't consider it worse than the other example put on the table as superior (Template:Infobox motorcycle). After the WP:BOLD, my opinion on making any major changes is that a more than shaky consensus on that need to be achieved, as such change would affect thousands of articles. This needs far more input.

As for the other changes, as changing assembly to assembly_country, I oppose. If there's really interest on doing that change, I'll explain why. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with you on the use. I think "Mini (BMW)," "Mercedes (Daimler AG)," "Audi (VW Group)," and "Lexus (Toyota)" all make sense and should be the way it's used. Unfortunately, it's not being used that way, or some of the current use is legacy. de Facto, what do you think? -- heat_fan1 (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think we are quitethere yet. Think of these cars:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Marque !! Model !! Designed & Developed by !! Manufacturer !! Parent Company
 * Jaguar|| XE || Jaguar Land Rover || Jaguar Land Rover || Tata Motors
 * Land Rover || Range Rover Sport || Jaguar Land Rover || Jaguar Land Rover || Tata Motors
 * MINI || Clubman || BMW || BMW || BMW
 * MINI || Countryman || BMW || Magna Steyr || ?????
 * Mercedes-Benz || G-Class || Daimler-Benz || Magna Steyr || ?????
 * Aston Martin || DB9 || Aston Martin Lagonda || Aston Martin Lagonda || Aston Martin Lagonda
 * Lagonda || Taraf || Aston Martin Lagonda || Aston Martin Lagonda || Aston Martin Lagonda
 * Rolls-Royce || Wraith || Rolls-Royce Motor Cars/BMW || Rolls-Royce Motor Cars || BMW
 * Tesla || Roadster || Lotus/Tesla || Lotus || ?????
 * Lotus || Evora || Lotus || Lotus || Proton
 * Renault || Espace I || Chrysler UK/Matra || Matra || ?????
 * }
 * Lagonda || Taraf || Aston Martin Lagonda || Aston Martin Lagonda || Aston Martin Lagonda
 * Rolls-Royce || Wraith || Rolls-Royce Motor Cars/BMW || Rolls-Royce Motor Cars || BMW
 * Tesla || Roadster || Lotus/Tesla || Lotus || ?????
 * Lotus || Evora || Lotus || Lotus || Proton
 * Renault || Espace I || Chrysler UK/Matra || Matra || ?????
 * }
 * Lotus || Evora || Lotus || Lotus || Proton
 * Renault || Espace I || Chrysler UK/Matra || Matra || ?????
 * }
 * Renault || Espace I || Chrysler UK/Matra || Matra || ?????
 * }


 * Then try to fit them into this table using the template parameter definitions:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Name !! Manufacturer !! Assembly
 * Jaguar XE || ? || ?
 * Land Rover Range Rover Sport || ? || ?
 * MINI Clubman || ? || ?
 * MINI Countryman || ? || ?
 * Mercedes-Benz G-Class || ? || ?
 * Aston Martin DB9 || ? || ?
 * Lagonda Taraf || ? || ?
 * Rolls-Royce Wraith || ? || ?
 * Tesla Roadster || ? || ?
 * Lotus Evora || ? || ?
 * Renault Espace I || ? || ?
 * }
 * Lagonda Taraf || ? || ?
 * Rolls-Royce Wraith || ? || ?
 * Tesla Roadster || ? || ?
 * Lotus Evora || ? || ?
 * Renault Espace I || ? || ?
 * }
 * Lotus Evora || ? || ?
 * Renault Espace I || ? || ?
 * }
 * Renault Espace I || ? || ?
 * }


 * -- de Facto (talk). 19:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think there are simple answers for most of them. As I already pointed out, the Mini case is exactly the same than the Lexus. The Espace was not was developed by Chrysler UK, only early stages of the design were within Chrysler's, the bulk of the development was made by Matra (and the manufacturing itself, which is the relevant point to this discussion, not design), so Matra or Renault (Matra) is the manufacturer. Magna Steyr can be considered as an OEM, so it is difficult to accomodate it in any infobox design, but I would say that the manufacturer should be listed as Mercedes-Benz (Daimler). Most car parts (sometimes entire modules) are manufactured and even designed by OEMs (uner certain specifications requested by the manufacturer) and we don't list them in Wikipedia. This is pretty extreme case, of course, but the basics are the same. The Rolls-Royce Wraith manufacturer can be simple listed as Rolls-Royce/BMW. In the Lagonda Taraf case, it's easy: Lagonda (Aston Martin). The JLR case is a little more complicated, but I would go for each marque and JLR as the parent. The Evora as Lotus (Proton). The Roadster as Tesla, for similar reason to the Magna Steyr case. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * can you take a copy of the second table and fill the last three columns how you think it should be filled, so we can see what you would include and what you would omit from the vehicle data, to compare that with how the current template doc seems to describe it.
 * The current template doc specifies that "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." Are we now saying we should omit the entity responsible for engineering and developing the vehicle, and instead duplicate the brand name again in that field? -- de Facto (talk). 20:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait. Is there a source for this claim that the Wraith is manufactured by Rolls-Royce Motor Cars/BMW, but the Clubman is manufactured by BMW? Source? The sources I've seen say they're both made in factories in the UK that are subsidiaries of BMW. No difference. I'm getting the sense that this is POV pushing with no basis, but it becomes a factoid we somebody repeat it often enough. I would drop this excessive interest in OEM manufactures or parts suppliers. This is turning into special pleading, or a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, where fans try to argue that X is not a "true" Y, where "true" is whatever the fans like. Just say where it is made. The body of the article can delve into where all the parts come from and who puts them together. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * don't dwell too much on whether my examples are true cases (treat them as hypothetical), but imagine they are for now because there will be similar real cases out there, and concentrate on the data you think we should put from them into the template. Take a copy of the table and see how we could fill it from the supplied data. I thought we were trying to optimise the template use, not analyse actual cases. Do you think we should lose the design/engineering/development stuff currently mentioned in the template doc? -- de Facto (talk). 21:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait, wait. Why is the discussion only concerned with the present set of circumstances forgetting tomorrow or even the past? Was the original Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost made only by BMW? Eddaido (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

de Facto: Basically. my answer is yes. It's true the current text is a little pretentious as it stands, I'd make it simpler. A lot of OEMs nobody knows and nobody cares make a lot of development and engineering. I keep my answers as I said, the only really confusing are Lotus and Magna Steyr, and they can be considered OEMs. As for the aseembly site, it should be the final assembly site of each vehicle, regardless of which manufacturer are listed.

To Dennis Bratland. I don't know who manufactured the Wraith, I used the deFacto table on that case, assuming it was correct. And yes, in my opinion Magna Steyr should be listed as the assembler, but not as the manufacturer, regardless of your comments. If you think my vision is incorrect, fair enough, but that's why I think we need more experienced editors giving input. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't add any more fields than we have to. It's already a long infobox, and so it makes page layout worse the more it grows. And more fields creates more debate over how to pigeonhole facts that might not fit. The current assembly (i.e. where it's assembled, not who) field is fine; we don't need to name the manufacturer or assembler. Brand (aka marque/make) and parent are enough. Explaining the background of cars with convoluted design, parts supply, manufacture, and assembly belongs in prose in the text. The added length also balances these tall infoboxes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * when you say "parent" do you mean top-level (eg. Tata Motors for the Jaguar XE) or the immediate parent company that produces the brand (eg. Jaguar Land Rover for the Jaguar XE)?. I would say that the least we need are: marque, model, the immediate production company (Jaguar Land Rover for the Jag XE not Tata Motors) and the manufacturing location. That would give (if my assumptions about company structures are correct):
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Name !! Manufacturer !! Assembly
 * Jaguar XE || Jaguar Land Rover || Solihull
 * Land Rover Range Rover Sport || Jaguar Land Rover || Solihull
 * MINI Clubman || BMW || Cowley
 * MINI Countryman || BMW || Graz
 * Mercedes-Benz G-Class || Daimler AG || Graz
 * Aston Martin DB9 || Aston Martin Lagonda || Gaydon
 * Lagonda Taraf || Aston Martin Lagonda || Gaydon
 * Rolls-Royce Wraith || Rolls-Royce Motor Cars || Goodwood
 * Tesla Roadster || Tesla || Hethel
 * Lotus Evora || Lotus || Hethel
 * Renault Espace I || Renault || Romorantin
 * }
 * Lagonda Taraf || Aston Martin Lagonda || Gaydon
 * Rolls-Royce Wraith || Rolls-Royce Motor Cars || Goodwood
 * Tesla Roadster || Tesla || Hethel
 * Lotus Evora || Lotus || Hethel
 * Renault Espace I || Renault || Romorantin
 * }
 * Lotus Evora || Lotus || Hethel
 * Renault Espace I || Renault || Romorantin
 * }
 * Renault Espace I || Renault || Romorantin
 * }


 * -- de Facto (talk). 22:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually like Dennis Bratland proposition, I think is clever. I mean, I personally don't think listing the assembly entity makes a great dilemma, but at the same time I'm have not a problem with dropping that info if it's the only thing in the way of consensus. Brand and parent should be enough. My only caveat is that, on that case, entities like Magna Steyr, which are OEMs, third-party contractors or whatever people want to call it, shouldn't be even listed on the infobox. The revised deFacto table is not that far away of how I think things should be looking. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In the discussion above there seems to be occasional confusion, some editors consider manufacturer = brand. Does it?


 * On the template page the manufacturer is defined:  . . . the company, division, or subsidiary responsible for the vehicle's engineering and development . . . . Is that not telling us the manufacturer named in the infobox is not the manufacturer or "maker", the party that actually organises the construction of all the components into a whole? Someone in Graz might do the job for them but the manufacturer organised them (the people in Graz) into it and makes sure they are supplied with components and takes away the Graz output.


 * For old stuff I think DeFacto's proposal is just fine so long as we are permitted to make a distinction between, say, Daimler-Benz and Daimler AG or the various Rolls-Royce manifestations. Eddaido (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right Eddaido, confusion arises frequently (from me and from others), that's why I conceded that maybe we should limit ourselves to indicate brand and parent, removing the current definition. The problem is the distinction betweeen "brand" and "division" (and in some cases, even "subsidiary") is often blurry and seems more related to each company marketing approach and people's general perception that to a factual, defined difference. As I commented before, Lexus and Mini operate in exactly the same way, so saying one should be listed and the other not because one is a "division" and the other a "marque" seems more a POV. If we follow BMW itself, all its cars are assembled by the BMW Group that includes its three main marques. Sometimes, history influences the POV. Citroën and Peugeot are, in fact, only marques of Groupe PSA, (although, oddly enough, their articles here state they are currently subsidiaries...), and however we mostly not even mention Groupe PSA on their cars' articles...


 * As for Magna Steyr, I agree with you and you explained it well, the definition as it stands rule it out as a manufacturer. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Urbanoc for the kind words about Magna Steyr. About confusions, surely the editor writing the article must know as well as most people the correct answer. Are we not with Wikipedia providing a source that gives knowledge and removes confusion? A classic example to my mind is Talbot. For 15 years quite different cars called Talbot were made in both London and Paris (Paris riding on London's reputation). Have a look. In addition each ownership change means a different type of car. (I have never quite recovered from the actions of one editor who must have spent hours going through my carefully recorded facts amending each of them to something downright stupid like Austin with the edit comment "Over specific". One of the reasons I am here now.) Hope you are having / had a nice weekend. Eddaido (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course. At the end, people should know about the topic they're editing. And there's no template layout that can prevent plain misinformation... Anyway, At this point, and with the low feedback this thread has, I believe we should keep the status quo ante. Any change would imply fixing a lot of articles and it has not a clear support even within the editors involved. The change on assembly proposed by Dennis (that wouldn't imply a template redesign) is worth discussing, though.


 * Regarding the particular Mini case, I uphold the view it should be listed as Mini (BMW) as it's used on similar "manufacturers" (as Lexus), which in my opinion should be considered a de facto project convention. I rest my case.


 * Nice weekend to you too. :) --Urbanoc (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the template itself should remain unchanged, but I think that the advice given for how to fill the "manufacturer" field should be changed. It seems we largely agree that it should contain the name of the company directly responsible for the production of the vehicle and not an OEM tasked with manufacturing it or a reiteration of the marque name. So we could replace the current recommendation with something along those lines.


 * In relation to the MINIs though, where MINI is now simply a marque used by BMW, I believe the infobox should reflect that and the manufacturer should be stated as just BMW. -- de Facto (talk). 17:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm, sure, but that's not my point. My point is that has not been the standard practice, and it won't be. The "low feedback" also make reference to all the people that are in fact against that interpretation of the "manufacturer" entry and didn't express their views here, but certainly will do if you change an article of their favourite marque. How is Mini different from Citroën, Mercedes-Benz or Lexus (not all sources says Lexus is a "division", many describe it as a "marque" or "brand", "division" is pretty ambiguous in any case and should be removed as a manufacturer type). If I tried to put "Toyota", "Daimler AG" or "Groupe PSA" plainly as manufacturers I would be reverted right away. It seems more an issue of how much support every marque has. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * My view is that if the brand isn't also the name of the company producing the vehicles (which may also be a subsidiary company of a parent company) then it should not be put in the manufacturer field as that would be factually incorrect. -- de Facto (talk). 23:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the brand identified in big letters above the infobox? MINIs I agree BMW is the manufacturer. Groupe PSA makes Peugeot and Citroen brands doesn't it? So Peugeot (747) above the infobox and Groupe PSA as manufacturer. I thought they shared platforms and much more anyway. Eddaido (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't say I oppose that, but I keep my caveat. Well, in that case, I suggest proceeding this way: we should only list a manufacturer other that the parent if a defined subsidiary (not "division", not "brand") with a name different to the parent company manufactures the cars. I made changes to test reception to more exact definitions on Citroën. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you have amended an infobox company ;-)) Did you mean to do that? Eddaido (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tested if people can accept more exact definitions in the article of a popular marque. I was not reverted, so maybe we can change the manufacturer field in the cars' articles. I don't want to change the manufacturer until we get a consensus here of how to define it. --Urbanoc (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like this? I added further clarificaction on the third-party manufacturing side, as de Facto suggested: "The manufacturer field states the company or subsidiary responsible for the vehicle's overall manufacturing process (including engineering and development), which is not necessarily the entity assembling or marketing the vehicle. Third-party contractors or original equipment manufacturers should not be listed on the field. Do not use this field to list assembly locations, assembly facility names or assembly company names; that data must be entered in the separate assembly field".


 * What do you think? It's an early draw, so input of how it should be written is welcomed. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Mmm, I'd prefer "The manufacturer field states names the company (I'd prefer business) or subsidiary responsible for the vehicle's overall manufacturing process (including engineering and development), which is not necessarily the entity business assembling or marketing the vehicle. Third-party contractors or original equipment manufacturers should not be listed on the field. Do not use this field to list assembly locations, assembly facility names or assembly company assembler's names; that data must be entered in the separate assembly field"


 * and to tell you the honest truth I would much prefer "business" or "enterprise" or suchlike rather than company but that's a whole new can of worms which I've found "throws" 98% of editors! To me a company is a company is a company. To very many others it means what they think it means which can be a great surprise to more literal minded others! Consider: "two's company, three's a crowd", yes there is a direct link in meaning. Eddaido (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Third party contractors — what's (who's) that?
 * My version without fiddly bits:
 * "The manufacturer field names the business responsible for the vehicle's overall manufacturing process (including engineering and development) which is not necessarily the business assembling the vehicle. Third-party contractors or original equipment manufacturers should not be listed on the field. Do not use this field to list assembly locations, assembly facility names or assembler's names; that data must be entered in the separate assembly field" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddaido (talk • contribs) 10:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC) ‎


 * Third-party contractors: e.g. Magna Steyr. Some people had problems with "OEM", so I introduced a generic description for that type of companies. However. if it's no clear enough, it's pointless and should be removed. Maybe "contractor", plainly?
 * I don't have a problem with your changes. Business is more inclusive but, at the same time, probably less open to interpretation. --Urbanoc (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would just add that the manufacturer name isn't necessarily the brand name either. So based on Eddaido's draft, I suggest this (additions in bold): "The manufacturer field names the business responsible for the vehicle's overall manufacturing process (including engineering and development) which might not be the vehicle brand name and is not necessarily the business assembling the vehicle. Third-party contractors or original equipment manufacturers should not be listed on the field. Do not use this field to list assembly locations, assembly facility names or assembler's names; that data must be entered in the separate assembly field" -- de Facto (talk). 19:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks just fine to me but what are the thoughts of Heat fan, Dennis and Warren? Eddaido (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * we have a proposal to reword the documentation advice for the "Manufacturer" field (see in my previous post), do you have any other thoughts about this? -- de Facto (talk). 21:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with that. I'd like to go through some examples again, though. Am I right with this table?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heat fan1 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That looks right to me. Eddaido (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As can be seen here, the manufacturer of at least one Espace I is "Matra Automobile". -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm impressed! I thought I was saving up some difficult ones. Though they did not design or sell it there is a good case for linking the manufacturer of Espace I to Matra isn't there. And up to Espace III. In fact I think this is why we have the Manufacturer slot in the infobox. Eddaido (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought Matra and Chrysler UK designed the Espace, and Matra manufactured it (which is why I included it as an awkward case). We haven't allowed for parent in parentheses in our draft, so I would leave Proton off the Lotus entry. I don't think BMW are the manufacturers of the Tesla Roadster and I'm not sure whether Audi and/or RR cars are manufactured by their parent companies or whether they are sufficiently autonomous manufacturers themselves. -- de Facto (talk). 22:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Parent company seems to mean control (loss of autonomy). I suspect that in principle the holder of just 5 per cent of shares in GM can tell GM's directors what to do. I'd call this a Trump card. So, how to get this autonomous thing sorted? Eddaido (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * de Facto, you're right that I made a mistake on Tesla/BMW. Obviously that was meant to be Tesla. For Audi/Rolls, we're right back where we started. What piece of information are we trying to convey? How important is the degree of autonomy of a "manufacturer" in a summary of a single automobile? The same goes for the Espace 1 (another mistake; I was thinking of the current Espace). Ultimately, the car was released by PSA Peugeot Citroen, though it was designed and assembled by Matra. -- heat_fan1 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably not important in this context but doesn't the WP article say the initial Espace was designed by Chrysler-Simca (not Matra)?
 * and incidentally when a significant fact changes during the life of a car covered in one article doesn't the infobox show the first one at first or do we just have two infoboxes? If we are providing information it must be accurate mustn't it.


 * To cope with the various sensitivities around Jaguar there has to be a parent box to show Tata doesn't there? Eddaido (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * To paraphrase the Espace article it says first Chrysler UK and later Matra which was affiliated with Simca of Chrysler France.


 * The details of each car aside, do we have enough backing now to replace the current doc wording with new wording? -- de Facto (talk). 07:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Where you all get the idea Chrysler UK was the manufacturer? Early designs were Chrysler's, but they dropped it early and Matra Automobiles made the development and engineering, and then sold it to Renault. I repeat myself on that, the manufacturer of the first Espace should be listed as Matra.


 * The above discussion let me convinced we shouldn't make any changes if the wording allows so vague interpretations, even if I'm not entirely happy as it stands. The point of any change is to make things clearer. If we are still getting different outcomes from the same words, that obviously wasn't reached. --Urbanoc (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oops. that's my mistake, I became concerned that someone seemed to be saying something different from what I thought I had read about Espace. Maybe that was wrong in this context and a red herring. So that discussion was about the facts as recorded in the WP article about the Espace and not the true matter in hand, slots in 'our' infobox. I do think we have to somehow allow for nomination of any parent enterprise (Jaguar Tata) and changes during a brand's life (manufacturer Matra then Manufacturer Renault, how should that be dealt with?) in all other matters I just see harmony all round. Am I wrong? Eddaido (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The infobox in Renault Espace (still) says that the manufacturer of the Espace I is “Renault”. You said it was “Renault” (de Facto), or “Groupe Renault” (heat_fan1, Eddaido), or “Matra or Renault (Matra)” (Urbanoc).
 * Isn't it very obvious that you all were simply guessing, just like most of those who fill in the infoboxes? How does this comply with WP:V? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the question here is how do we define "Manufacturer". If you look back at this discussion (and even in the history of the article itself) you will see that I believe the manufacturer of the original Espaces was Matra, but that depends on a particular definition of "manufacturer". That definition might also give the manufacturer of the Tesla Roadster as Lotus. Later in the discussion other definitions emerged which could, arguably, have given it as Renault. Do you have a view on how we could better define what the manufacturer field should contain? -- de Facto (talk). 19:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The “manufacturer” is the legal entity whose name is on the builder's plate, as you can see in the picture I have linked above. The first three characters of the VIN of this Renault Espace I also designate its manufacturer: “VF8”, which stands for “Matra Automobile”. It is a technical term, nothing that can be discussed. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * the discussion is to decide how we define "manufacturer" for this template, which may be different to that definition. However, it is an idea worth taking seriously. How would we know what's on the VIN plates without opening bonnets and looking at them? Is there a register or reference somewhere by vehicle that you know of? -- de Facto (talk). 21:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't generally think of "Manufacturer" as being the assembler, and the current instructions agree. I think of Manufacturer and Make being the same, but I understand that's redundant here since Make is already in the vehicle name. So, how about this? Manufacturer means the first owner of the selling brand. Here's how that plays out in the table:

-- heat_fan1 (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I like it - first owner of the brand, yes. And I agree with most of what you've put in your table too - except, I think your new rule would make Lotus Cars (as the first owner of the Lotus brand) the manufacturer of the Evora though, Audi AG the manufacturer of the A6, and Rolls-Royce Motor Cars that of the Wraith, . -- de Facto (talk). 19:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Brakehorsepower, further up in the discussion, has made a suggestion which might be the answer to this. Use the manufacturer name as stated on the vehicles' VIN plates. It is a reliable source and would make the data verifiable. Are there any objections to using that? -- de Facto (talk). 21:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please may I refer back to earlier in this discussion in which I pointed out that the manufacturer of the Espacce is Matra for I to III and then Renault and I asked just how this should be displayed. Please discuss this you bunch of mad recentists you! For heavens sake today will be history tomorrow. Eddaido (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * to save reinventing the wheel then, do you support the idea of simply using the VIN plate data for the manufacturer? -- de Facto (talk). 22:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Very sorry about this but that question is exactly the kind of thing I whine about above
 * Where do I find a VIN plate on a 1929 Chevrolet?
 * What year did VIN plates come into fashion (subsidiary to the important question about Chevrolets)
 * Eddaido (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * granted, VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) is a relatively recent term (started in the 1950s according to the article) for something that used to be called the "chassis number". The VIN plate or Chassis Number Plate is the metal plaque affixed somewhere to the car that records this number. The plate, conveniently, also has the official manufacturer name on it. The picture that Brakehorsepower pointed us to showed an Espace VIN plate, with "Matra Automobiles" given as the manufacturewr. As far as I know, these plates date back at least as far as your 1929 Chevvy. -- de Facto (talk). 22:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I must have found a different article. Something about beginning in 1981. So what about not using VIN plate — I'm thinking of BHP's comment along the lines of nobody knows what to enter for manufacturer! - who among these editors is going to go out hunting for VIN plates? They will just enter the facts to the best of their knowledge. When there is a dispute where parties will go that extent of trouble I agree it is a good source but I don't think VIN plate should be part of the definition or whatever. It doesn't cover everything.
 * If you wish to repeat things I say again "Please may I refer back to earlier in this discussion in which I pointed out that the manufacturer of the Espace is Matra for I to III and then Renault and I asked just how this should be displayed. Please discuss this you bunch of mad recentists you! For heavens sake today will be history tomorrow." Eddaido (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * from Vehicle Identification Number:- "VINs were first used in 1954". The plate that they're on though dates back decades before that, and it's the manufacturer, not the VIN (or Chassis Number) that we are interested in. Here's one on a 1929 Packard: (3rd image), and one on a recent BMW Mini:  (2nd image). They are evidence of the company name at the date of manufacture, so a good source of data if there is a dispute. -- de Facto (talk). 23:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes! But they are not VIN plates. Do not be so specific if you are going to be inaccurate! And I think 1954 refers to a particular part of the world.
 * On reflection I will put it all more simply. A dispute has arisen over the manufacturer of Espace.
 * BHP has won by presenting a photo of the VIN plate. End of discussion. It does not need to be mentioned in our instructions it is too obvious.
 * BHP also points out that no allowance is being made for a change in manufacturer during the life of the vehicle covered in the infobox. How is this to be dealt with?
 * Where are we on “Parent”?
 * Eddaido (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "VIN plate" is the modern-day colloquialism for such plates (the link about the 1929 Packard uses the term too).
 * We are trying to define here what to put in the manufacturer field in general (brand, parent, R&D company, or whatever) and that the VIN plate on an Esapace had Matra as the manufacturer added weight to the argument to put Matra in the box for the Espace, so what not mention VIN plates as a useful source in the case of disagreement?
 * As in the assembly field, we could stack manufacturers (with dates) in the manufacturer field where manufacturers change over time
 * I don't favour adding the parent to the manufacturer field - if there's a desire to show parent I'd suggest a new field for it
 * -- de Facto (talk). 07:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ""VIN plate" is the modern-day colloquialism . . ." I'm not so sure about that. 'Since the early 1980s pretty much every car has had a VIN plate' is true. Please just don't say VIN plate when you don't always mean VIN plate. See? On the other hand you could prefix it with "for example". Otherwise we seem to be in agreement about stacking and a new parent field. Eddaido (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @Eddaido: According to the article, it was not the VIN as such that was introduced in 1981, but the 17-character VIN which includes the WMI.
 * @de Facto: “Is there a register or reference somewhere by vehicle that you know of?” Not to my knowledge. That's why I have always said that “manufacturer” should be removed from the infobox. It's mostly not verifiable. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please may we transfer the disagreement about origins and use of VIN plates somewhere else away from here. What matters is the intention to specify VIN plate is daft for cars that have no VIN plate, leaves the editor up in the air.. Do I see a suggestion that Manufacturer is Not subject to the requirement for a citation? best, Eddaido (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * “All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.” -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I can clarify something here. A vehicle identification number is a generic idea that has been applied to practically all vehicles for the past 100 years - even it is as simple as a scrawled #3 somewhere underneath the car. However, a VIN is a very specific form that came into existence in 1954 in the US but in a non-standardised form from different manufacturers. The US standardised it in 1981 so that vehicles sold in the US all agreed in its format but other countries didn't agree to it until much later. For example, I have an Australian-spec 1983 Toyota Sprinter and an Australian-spec 1987 Toyota Cressida in my driveway and neither has a VIN or VIN plate. However, both have a chassis number stamped into the firewall and a manufacturer build plate that duplicates that number riveted to the firewall. The build plate quite clearly says "TOYOTA" or the equivalent in Japanese. Where a VIN plate was suggested above, I think we should be saying the 'build plate'. For most vehicles in most countries for the last 20 years this will be a VIN plate. For older vehicles (depending on country) this will be a similar plate - just not using the VIN standard. But some very old vehicles may not have a build plate.

So we can specify that if a build plate is attached to the vehicle then manufacturer mentioned on that build plate will be taken as authoritative. But if there is no build plate or we don't have that information (eg no photo) then other methods may be used to identify the manufacturer.  Stepho  talk 09:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Such as? “Is there a register or reference somewhere by vehicle that you know of?” By the way, a photo of a plate will only bring certainty about the manufacturer of that specific vehicle, but not of the entire model series. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Bhp. Well, what about the source of all the other information used to fill in the infobox, why not use that? If it can be made yet more accurate by reference to a plate permanently fastened to the vehicle that's all the better. I haven't looked but I've never noticed a citation next to the name of the manufacturer. Now I have looked. Take a quick glance at this page for VW Golf, there's not one citation is there. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, in reply to your last edit summary, there's a reason for not entering citations into infobox fields: this would make extracting data from the template quite messy.
 * Still, according to WP:V, all content must be verifiable, which isn't equivalent to verified.
 * When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, it is suggested to “state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.” This is just what I'm doing here, instead of stating my concern in every single article. (And whenever I link to photos of builder's plates, such as this one of a 1978 Golf [please note: it says the manufacturer is “Volkswagenwerk AG”, not just “Volkswagen”], I'm well aware that these photos are definitely not published reliable sources.) -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I find it hard to believe "this would make extracting data from the template quite messy" is a good and sufficient reason for not including citation links. Why do you say it is messy? And in any case this is an often broken "rule". Why should it be allowed to remain "a rule". Eddaido (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Take a quick look at the Templatetiger, anyone who uses it to extract data from infoboxes will approve that citations should not be entered into infobox fields. There also is the Manual of Style that says: editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article. But we're getting sidetracked here. Before adding citations anywhere, they have to be found in the first place. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

When considering "manufacturer" of an automobile, I think we have to recognize that this is an arbitrary and not well-defined term. This infobox has a definition, but only editors who review the infobox information will know what that definition is. Therefore, I believe the information is pretty much unverifiable. That said, I think it's important that we define it in such a way that it's used consistently, which is what's currently lacking.

I propose that the "manufacturer" be the business that is most closely aligned with and is selling the vehicle. I'll go along with de Facto and say that it should be a legal entity of some sort. Wikipedia seems to do a good job of identifying a marque's status. Among the non-obvious, here are some:

On the other hand, these marque's should be listed as "manufacturers":

Thoughts? We've been discussing this for quite a while now. -- heat_fan1 (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I very strongly disagree with the last two editors but now I shall remain quiet again. Ah, just a moment. And has template tiger in fact been revived, and used, and if it has cannot they fix that part of it. Have a nice day, Eddaido (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't remain silent. We all got tangled in the web of VIN plates and manufacturer plates, so I wanted to bring the discussion back to where it needs to be. What are your thoughts? What do you suggest we do? -- heat_fan1 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Gosh, looks like I've missed a lengthy debate! Some interesting points here. For me the issue is perhaps manufacturer is being used in different ways by different editors and it would seem that the marque a car is sold under is perhaps where much of the comment above seems to reflect, with the actually physical manufacture of the vehicle listed under assembly. Heat fan1 and De Facto seem to be offering this conclusion which I could support. Warren (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Warren, yes I think the main point is that the manufacturer isn't even necessarily the same as the marque, especially in recent decades. For example, all current Land Rovers have Jaguar Land Rover as their manufacturer, BMW is the manufacturer of MINIs, etc. With multinational mergers, acquisitions, break-ups and brand transfers it's all become very blurred. -- de Facto (talk). 22:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 January 2017
Remove doors data, door amount should be in body_style section, and what is Floor type?? (data15), somebody has added new sections without consulting wp:automobiles 1st -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC) >Typ932 T&middot;C 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This template hasn't been edited for over a year (last substantial edit was Dec 2015). Is there a reason why these parameters shouldn't be in the template, seeing as how they apparently were added without any issue? Primefac (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * yes there is reason, doors is one parameter in body_style field, we dont need duplicate field for that, somebody has added that doors field without consensus or discussion in project page -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 11:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

SUV prevalence and need for related parameters
World-wide sales of SUVs grew from 5 million units in 2000 to 20 million in 2015 and are forecast to hit 42 million units by 2031. , so I propose including three new parameters in the infobox automobile: --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Approach angle
 * Departure angle
 * Ground clearance


 * The majority of SUVs never go off the road, so the proposed new parameters are not relevant in their normal use.  Stepho  talk 12:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Is that the criterium ? — Many of the box's current parameters aren't relevant to described cars' 'normal' use. I think the criterium should be encyclopedic relevance, in light of the fact that SUVs imply an off-road capability claim, regardless if it's used. The infobox motorcycle is considerably more comprehensive than that of automobiles, even though cars play a much more important role in vehicular locomotion on this planet, so I think expanding the infobox auto a little bit is duly warranted. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that those parameters need to be added to the infobox. I would include "Wading depth" too. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't forget number of cup holders, number of speakers and number of vanity mirrors. These are big criteria in the buying of SUV's.  Stepho  talk 00:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contibuting some jocularity. Some parameters should be made available with an instruction to only use them for vehicles where including this info is warranted — like for instance the current propulsion parameter, which is only to be used for non-wheeled vehicles. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I support GeeTeeBee's proposal. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think approach/departure angles on civilian vehicles would be hard. Different options could easily change them. Example: At | Jeep Renegade the Trailhawk and Sport will almost certainly have different angles. You will have to go to a specific model/options package or show a range. Sammy D III (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again: the parameters should only be used on cars where relevant. And the existence of version differences also applies to many of the parameters currently already in the infobox. I don't think that should be the deciding criterium whether or not to include. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Those parameters are only valid for very rare vehicles, thats why I dont see we would need them in template -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 18:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the brochures for all serious SUVs/4x4s include all those details, and all serious buyers and users of such vehicles would want to know those details. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not? It will be used, and off-road people will probably care. Sammy D III (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the problem is that box cant contain all wanted info, we need to keep it short enough. If you add this whats next thing someone else wants? there isnt so many serious SUVs in markets anyway.  -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 18:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Opposing the parameters I proposed, on the basis that you're likely to oppose other parameters that others might ask for in the future, is an illogical argument. The infobox motorcycle is considerably more comprehensive than that of automobiles, even though cars play a much more important role in vehicular locomotion on this planet, AND the parameters can be provided with the instruction to only fill them for cars that have (or for which is claimed) a fair amount of off-roading ability. If you have good reasons why the infobox auto should be more concise than that for motorbikes, I invite you to present a more solid argument. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As said only couple of serious SUVs, no need field for that, the box is already missing more important things than this (read old archives) . And those have been left out because those things mentioned before -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 07:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If we add all fields we want, that infobox would grow very huge, but if enough people want those maybe we can add, but we need some sort of voting what to add, now its missing more important fields like suspension, track width, top speed etc etc
 * OK, I'm definitely in favor of adding suspension and top speed as well, but not track width. Contrary to wheelbase, which can vary very significantly for cars of the same length, having different overhangs — the track tends to correlate sufficiently with the width of the car, so I don't see sufficient added value to include that in the infobox. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Motorbike template:

car template:

-- >Typ932 T&middot;C 07:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This template is not my turf, I have never used it . Do you really "need to keep it short enough"? Why? Example: Weapon, pretty common, is a couple of meters long. It does cover a much wider subject, but ignoring most of it has never been a problem for me, and I used it for vehicles.
 * Different note: Isn't width vs. track the same as length vs. wheelbase, just closer? Do serious race-car(ish) people care about track?
 * Just observations, not meant as opinions. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This conversation should be in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles   -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As a general comment, it seems gratuitously unhelpful to make these infoboxes unnecessarily restrictive.  The example of "track" that someone mentioned above is a case in point.   In most cases you can make the case that "nobody cares" so ... fine, leave that field blank.   But for the Citroën DS, the way that the track is much wider at the front than at the back has excited comment ever since the car appeared on the roads sixty years ago.   Presumably there are wiki readers who noticed that and ... wondered.   For the Volkswagen K70 the comment appeared in the press when the car was launched that the manufacturer had to widen the track beyond what was originally intended because the large windows - and the relatively high proportion of the car's weight that was above waist level (because thick glass is much heavier than thin sheet steel) meant that otherwise it would be insufficiently stable on corners.   So there I would be interested to be able quickly to compare the track of a K70 with that of the NSU Ro80 and the early Audi 100 which was designed as a competitor for the same market segment.   It may be nerdy, but we all have our nerdy moments.   It is surely not the purpose of an infobox designer to block off the options.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To my surprise, even the infobox Weapon template has vehicle parameters that would seem (to me) to be no-brainers to include in an infobox Automobile template, like:
 * engine_power      =
 * pw_ratio          =
 * payload_capacity  =
 * suspension        =
 * clearance         =
 * fuel_capacity     =
 * vehicle_range     =
 * speed             =
 * guidance          =
 * steering          =
 * --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion notice: Observe MOS:FONTSIZE in infobox templates
There is a discussion about infobox font sizes at Village pump (proposals). Answer there, not here.  Stepho  talk 06:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Missing fields
See Talk:Mini Moke Peter Horn User talk 12:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If I an reading the link correctly, this is about the the inclusion of ground clearance and track dimensions. I think part of this discussion (with ground clearance) has already been had (in the context of SUVs); I agree with not introducing it as a new parameter.  While front and rear track is a bit more universal of a dimension in terms of application, including such specific information in the infobox can lead to clutter.  --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Another missing parameter?
When looking out and about across WP at infoboxes, I find this one has an interesting parameter that is missing that can be quite useful. As it sits now, there is no parameter to enter footnotes (if one wants to enter citations, it has to be done for each field separately). While it may take some coding to pull off, for those articles which have citations related to infobox content, this could clean things up a great deal. --SteveCof00 (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example?  Stepho  talk 01:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 November 2018
Please change " Platform " to " Platform "

to avoid a re-direct. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with redirects. See WP:REDIRECT.  Stepho  talk 21:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As Stepho says, nothing wrong with redirects. There's no real point making the server hit with this edit request over the redirect system. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  06:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)