Template talk:Infobox Automobile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
2006-01-02 - 2008-04-30

1 Additional fields to be added?
2 Propose simplification
3 Fuel Economy
- 3.1 Vote on Fuel Economy in the Infobox
- 3.2 Fuel economy rating
4 Oppose simplification
5 RfC: Fields to include

[edit] Additional fields to be added?

Ought to be added: Engine location, engine displacement, power, torque, BHP/Liter, power to weight ratio, Top Speed, 0-60 Acceleration.

I'm not sure how easy it would be to add those fields or whether there is already a more technical version of the automobile infobox. Many thanks. Oliverwk 19:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add the following fields to the template. If somebody has issues let me know.

Ground Clearance
Front Suspension
Rear Suspension
Tire type
Tire Size
Wheel Size
Maximum Power
Maximum Torque
Displacement
Brake Tire - Rear
Brake Tire - Front

Abhishek Chandra (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Engine location is already covered by layout. Engine displacement goes under engine. Power, torque, bhp/L, power to weight, top speed, and 0-60 times are not necessary in the infobox. Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide or comparison site.

Ground clearance and wheel size seem to be excessive detail to me. Suspension, tires, and brakes should be in the article, if note-worthy, not infobox. Power, torque and displacement I already mentioned.

In general I think the infobox should be as brief as possible, and not a complete specs rundown. It should provide the essential information and not much more. There are plenty of websites out there that are better suited for a table of specifications. swa q 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. The infobox does not conform to current guidelines. We should be looking to scale it back before even coming close to thinking about scaling it up. Roguegeek (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propose simplification

[edit] First proposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Revised proposition

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

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

swa q 16:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The Spanish-language example

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

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

[edit] Fuel Economy

There seems to be no obvious reason why fuel economy is not included in the infobox. This is one of the most important data points for automobiles now, far higher than 'designer', 'layout', 'length', 'width', 'aka', and so on. The proposals I've seen for min/max mileage for city and highway make perfect sense, as well as the rating per whichever market the car is primarily targeted for. I support the addition of this item to the infobox, and also support the removal of other superfluous information. Skyemoor (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How many times must it be explained? The infobox is not the most efficient or helpful way to show fuel economy. Giving a 10 MPG range doesn't help anyone because there is no context. My suggestion of including fuel economy in a table that includes engine, transmission, power, and torque data will allow the specific ratings for each powertrain to be included. If you really thought fuel economy was that important wouldn't you want complete data? --Sable232 (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully support this. I know Skyemoor is a far more...active member than I, but I can speak as a reader of Wikipedia and not as primarily an editor when I say that wheelbase and dimensions are superfluous to any automobile search I make here, but I would very much like to see fuel economy ratings since it's a bit inconvenient to look it up on fueleconomy.gov, not to mention the fact that that website is only applicable to Americans. The infobox should be there to give people a brief idea of how a vehicle compares to others, and fuel economy is an important indicator. All of the proposed information is useful, but not so much as fuel usage. I suppose I'm supporting more positions than just this one, but the way I see it there ought to be as much information as possible in all articles, and the most important parts (such as model years, body styles, engine type, other names, and fuel economy, as important of a specification as engine type) should be in prominent places where somebody can get a quick idea about the subject without going in-depth. Mewsterus (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Mewsterus: I don't find wheelbase etc. to be "superfluous," as you say. In fact, if the purpose of the infobox is to compare different vehicles, well, I've used the wheelbase/length/width information extensively.

I would like to make it clear that I am not opposed to including fuel economy data in the article. I just believe that if the information is to be useful there is a better way of doing it. --Sable232 (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Above you had said, "Saying "The car has a 110.2-inch wheelbase, an overall length of 198.1 inches, is 70.6 inches wide and is 52.1 or 52.5 or 53 inches tall depending on model" is... less than desirable." Stating fuel economy for city, highway, with ranges for various models would equally be undesirable. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I NEVER suggested that fuel economy data be put into prose. I have said several times what I think, and I'm getting tired of the fact that nobody looks at it. Some articles have a table showing engines and transmissions with power and torque output. (Like here.) If we are going to have fuel economy in the article, adding it to a table like that makes perfect sense. Fuel economy is, in part, a function of engine and transmission design. --Sable232 (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is an important data point does not mean it belongs in the infobox. The infobox is not there to list specifications, it is there as summary or overview information. How it could be displayed is irrelevant because it doesn't belong there in the first place. See manual of style for infoboxes. The only argument I've heard for including fuel economy in the infobox so far is that it is "important", but that's only an argument to have it in the article. To say it should be in the infobox you need to give a sound argument for it being overview information. Fuel economy is a measure of performance, meaning it is about what the vehicle can do as opposed to what the vehicle is. This is similar to top speed, acceleration, braking, handling, etc. Hardly summary information. swa q 21:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The current entries for aka, production, assembly, predecessor, successor, designer, etc, don't describe what a vehicle is, so that line of reasoning is invalid within this context. In this age of $120/barrel oil, it is one of the most important data points about a vehicle, far more important especially than the items mentioned at the beginning of this post. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes they do. They give background information on what defines that car. Fuel economy is a performance metric. I don't agree that fuel economy is more important in the context of an encyclopedic entry. If this were Consumer Reports then maybe it would be more important, but we are not writing a car buying guide. swa q 20:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Background information? Not 'what a vehicle is'? All of those fields are trite, superfluous bits of information, that have little to do with what the average reader wants, and that is foreground information, with fuel economy at the top of the list. Consumer reports has nothing to do with an encyclopedia, and constant reference to it is a red herring. Skyemoor (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, try this:

Because one fuel economy value is misleading. And because twenty fuel economy figures don't fit.

One fuel economy figure is misleading because:

Popular models come with a wide range of petrol / diesel / hybrid / ethanol mix engines. Each has its own different fuel economy profile. And, driven now increasingly also by politics, the engine permutations continue to proliferate.

In line with our policy of continuous improvement ... manufacturers quietly add weight to cars, or change the engine tune during model lives. Lighter materials in the seats. Thinner glass. Cheaper / heavier metals / panels. More plastic in the grill.

Popular models have a range of different bodies. Each has its own weight / fuel economy.

Popular models may have manual (six speed optional) or automatic gear boxes. Different fuel economy figures.

Some drivers drive at busy times. Lots of stop:start. Lots of fuel.

Some can avoid busy times. Less stop:start. Less fuel.

Some drivers keep a sack of stones in the trunk and travel with four friends each weighing >200 lb / 90 kg (as you wish). More fuel.

Some drivers are women who sometimes weigh less. Less fuel.

Some passengers are kids: some kids weigh less than their moms.

Some live in the country. Lots of steady cruising at 55 mph in high gear. Less fuel.

Some live in Montana. Mountain driving uses much more fuel

Some live in cities . Stop start. More fuel.

Some switch off the air-conditioning. With a small engine, that saves a lot of fuel. (But you sweat more.)

Some accelerate violently - eg if the business pays your fuel bill.

Some drive gently to save fuel - eg if you pay for fuel from taxed income.

Some manufacturers' have been known to advertise fuel economy figures that drivers can't match (surely not...? - and indeed it's more of an issue, I think, with older sources on older cars)

SO there are government agency defined standardized driving sequences which attempt to get round the variables in both the US and Europe. They're different, of course. And at least in Europe you still get three different values for any permutation of body and engine specification for (1) town driving cycle, (2), rural driving cycle and (3) some sort of average figure.

Some manufacturers in US and Europe quote figures per the government agencies in their ads and are indeed, in some jurisdictions, mandated to do so. Elsewhere they don't and / or they're not.

Some motoring journalists quote official figures.

Some journalists, especially with new cars not yet homologated, quote manufacturer's values.

Some quote their own experience based on their own driving style. Of course, cars tested by motoring journalists are carefully set up by manufacturers to optimize performance. The car you buy is probably pretty well set up and regularly serviced too, of course. Or maybe not.

Despite contrary evidence, wikipedians - even English speaking ones - come from all round the world. If an Englander writes about miles per gallon, he will be thinking in terms of a gallon that is 20% larger (might be smaller - can't remember) than his gallon would be if he were living in the US. And in countries where they've given up on ANY sort of gallon, fuel economy tends to be measured in litres per 100 kilometers. Try explaining that to an American who hasn't left The Union for ten years, maybe except for a couple of brief trips to Windsor to buy medication.

So yes, fuel economy is desperately important, but unless there is also space to spell out very clearly the sources for your fuel economy information, the sort of data you'll find in wiki (unless someone is volunteering to compile a huge database from consistently based sources - in which case you'll find the governments already did it) - a few isolated values for a few permutations of engine/ body / driver / road conditions is the best you can squeeze into the info box at the top of the article. And even there you'll have trouble squeezing in enough info about your sources and their assumptions to enable any reader intelligently to apply what you are telling him.

Yes please, DO include fuel economy info in wikipedia automobile articles: it's very important. But the amount of info you can squeeze into an info box that appears on the top right corner of the page on the average user's screen simply won't cover it. And you risk misleading the more casual reader if you let him believe any information included on this basis can be taken at face value.

After all that, I'm still not sure whether or not we should want to include any fuel economy info in the info box. I think probably we should, because the info box is there to summarize key data, and fuel economy is key data. But IF we do, then I think figures provided by government agencies are the only ones that will begin to offer comparability between different models. And even there, you need to specify either in the info box or by means of a referenced foot note, the engine/body combination applied and the model year / year of the measurements. At least, that's in a perfect world. Where we don't have between us the time and application to do it on that basis, then maybe it's better not to include ANY reference to fuel economy in the info box: you can still include it in the body of the article, and there it is easier to find space to summarize the defining variables which make any values you quote more or less reliable.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuel economy is not THAT key. People in the USA suddenly got all worked-up about it and thus few editors are running around in amok about it in Wikipedia. Come on, fueleconomy.gov is just one of those sites you go to for SPECIFIC data. Specialist sites deal with that kind of data much better than Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have to contain ALL information, just what is notable and encyclopedic. It is an encyclopedia, not a baroque-style almanach of entire human knowledge.

I find all the abovementioned arguments AGAINST inclusion of fuel economy not only in the infobox, but also in the article body whenever it is not really notable, valid and standing. Of course, if we decide to use huge tables listing tech data en masse (which might or might not be a good idea, though certainly better than to stuff it in infobox), we might quote some official figures for that - after all, if we list the number of gears, cylinders, front and rear tracks, this is yet another number. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I will respond to the points above;

A range of city and highway ratings addresses this.

Popular models have a range of different bodies. Each has its own weight / fuel economy.

A range of city and highway ratings addresses this.

Popular models may have manual (six speed optional) or automatic gear boxes. Different fuel economy figures.

A range of city and highway ratings addresses this.

Some drivers drive at busy times. Lots of stop:start. Lots of fuel.

These are estimates. Even power varies from car to car.

Some can avoid busy times. Less stop:start. Less fuel.

Again, these are estimates.

Some drivers keep a sack of stones in the trunk and travel with four friends each weighing >200 lb / 90 kg (as you wish). More fuel.

Not much of an argument

Some drivers are women who sometimes weigh less. Less fuel.

Again, these are estimates.

Some passengers are kids: some kids weigh less than their moms.

Again, these are estimates.

Some live in the country. Lots of steady cruising at 55 mph in high gear. Less fuel.

Different city and highway estimates help to differentiate different driving profiles.

Some live in Montana. Mountain driving uses much more fuel

Different city and highway estimates help to differentiate different driving profiles.

Some live in cities . Stop start. More fuel.

Different city and highway estimates help to differentiate different driving profiles.

Some switch off the air-conditioning. With a small engine, that saves a lot of fuel. (But you sweat more.)

Again, these are estimates.

Some accelerate violently - eg if the business pays your fuel bill.

Again, these are estimates.

Some drive gently to save fuel - eg if you pay for fuel from taxed income.

Again, these are estimates.

Some manufacturers' have been known to advertise fuel economy figures that drivers can't match (surely not...? - and indeed it's more of an issue, I think, with older sources on older cars)

Then the manufacturer's claim would be referenced, not a rating agency.

Listing the range of the reporting agency avoids this issue.

Some manufacturers in US and Europe quote figures per the government agencies in their ads and are indeed, in some jurisdictions, mandated to do so. Elsewhere they don't and / or they're not.

Some motoring journalists quote official figures.

Not an issue.

Use established ratings.

The EPA ratings are clear on what is used. Plus, the "fuel capacity" listing already addresses this.

Fuel economy can be stated quite simply, such as for the Honda Insight: |fuel_economy_city = 45-49 mpg EPA |fuel_economy_highway = 49-61 mpg EPA

198.151.13.8 (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuel economy is too specific. It should be included either in a table or in prose in the article, not in the infobox. See the manual of style for infoboxes. swa q 16:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Roguegeek (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Many items in the infobox can be labeled as 'too specific', so this is not an argument for or against inclusion into the infobox. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? Just because specific information is already in there doesn't mean more should be added. More likely the existing specific information should be removed per the guidelines. swa q 19:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

aka, production, assembly, predecessor, successor, designer, for starters. But you have yet to establish fuel economy as too specific. Simply saying it is doesn't make it so. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That is information about the vehicle's name, when and where it was produced, what car came before and after it, and who designed it. Those fall more under background information than specifications. I fail to see how they are more specific than an experimentally derived number. swa q 20:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that an awful lot of really useful information (top speed, 0-60 times, horsepower) cannot be put into the infobox for the exact same reasons. Look at the fields we currently have:

image - Image of which model year? The hatchback or pickuptruck or the saloon? Which color?
name - This is a minefield for some cars. Take a look at the Opel Vectra - which is also a Calibra or a Cavalier.
manufacturer - Again, lots of cars have many manufacturers.
parent_company - What constitutes a parent company and what is merely a majority shareholder or a holding company?
aka - Well, yes - exactly!
production - Well, this at least is reasonably clear.
assembly - Many cars are made in many places, and those places change over the years. It takes several paragraphs of text to explain all of the places where the Mini was made!
predecessor, successor, related - All very tricky/subjective matters. We have a lot of edit wars over this.
class - Where do you begin with this one? "The BlahTruck2000GT has the best fuel economy in it's class"...yeah, right.
body_style - Tricky because there are multiple terms in Brit/US English that are contradictory.
layout - May change over model years, also a matter for some recent debate here.
engine - There could easily be two dozen engines used over the live of a long-lived car production run.
transmission - Ditto
designer - Do we even know in the vast majority of cases?

So we don't have very many utterly clean, clear-cut fields right now. I don't think things like top speed, 0-60 time and fuel economy are any worse than these things. But it's going to be tricky to cope with all of the varients of some kinds of car.

I disagree with the original complaint about things like "It depends on how you drive it" - there are plenty of established fuel economy standards we can quote - the US and European 'official' numbers would cover most of the bases. Everyone knows that those numbers are not absolute figures. Sure, my car said 32/35mpg city/hwy on the sticker - I know it really gets about 29/33mpg when I drive it - and I know that if I'm super-careful (and turn off the A/C), I can get more like 35/42mpg. But that doesn't make the sticker numbers useless - they still serve as a useful comparison between brands. My car claimed 32/35 and it gets 29/33 in practice - but it's still getting better economy than that car over there that claims to get 30/33 (and would certainly get less in practice). Those numbers are useful IF they are all measured in the same manner. So let's put the US standard AND the Euro standard if we can find both - if not, we go with what we've got. Yes, there are a bunch of different engine options - but we have that problem with the "engine" and "transmission" fields already.

SteveBaker (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve,

First off, the Vectra and Calibra were two very distinctive cars, no Vectra was ever called Calibra and vice-versa.

Now, let me answer your reservations concerning other infobox fields:

image - not a big fan of "compulsory" image, we can do without fit for the sake of infobox brevity
name - we have ways to establish which name goes "on top", this is subject to another guideline - see also "aka"
manufacturer - not THAT "lots", it is usually two companies, with most models having one specific manufacturer. In case some info does not pertain to all generations, it should be excluded from the main infobox, so if e.g. a car was manufactured by XX in its first generation and YY in the second, this info should go into the generational infoboxes
parent_company - I think we've had some good definition, not sure if it got officially recorded (as usual with this WikiProject...). Personally, I am not a huge fan of that field, we can do without it.
aka - just a useful field to list other names, really don't see what's your problem€
production - This is actually tricky, but let's not go into that now.
assembly - Not fan of this field, esp. in general infoboxes, I am OK with doing away with it.
predecessor, successor, related - we've had good rules here, as usual not sure if recorded, just live in group memory of WikiProject members (i.e. - we need to go over it again and record). For most cases, predecessor and successor are clear. I am not totally against doing away with those, though.
class - Was among the ones who preferred doing away with this field, f
body_style - Which terms are contradictory? We use American English terminology for American cars, and British English for UK/European-market cars. Á discretion for other cars, though general WP rule says we should follow whichever branch of English the article (or majority thereof) is written in.
layout - In case they change, specific info goes into generational infoboxes, field remains empty in general infobox (see e.g. recent Buick Park Avenue edits)
engine - Those go into specific generational infoboxes
transmission - Well, ditto
designer - If we don't know, we leave empty. IMHO, we could do w/o this field.

Actually, I don't see this whole thing as relevant - let us discuss the merits of each field on their own, of course, but just because you can say something against this or that doesn't nullify the reasons we don't want to add fuel economy as a field. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is entirely relevant. If you can't defend what's in the inbox now, how can you refuse what many editors are stating is a field that is more important than most that are there now? A simple range of fuel economy in the target region (US =EPA, etc) for city and highway is short and simple, conveys valuable information to the reader, and is simple to implement. I can't see one valid reason not to move forward with this. Skyemoor (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So many things to respond to...anyway, I posted once way back there somewhere, and really all that I want is for fuel economy to be somewhere in every article. I'm not opposed to other performance stats, and just because I don't find them as important doesn't mean they aren't. I read the thing about a table of various specs, and I kind of like that idea, since it accounts for the various permutations of car design which produce enormous amounts of data that has to fit together somehow. I honestly don't care how we mention fuel economy, just that it gets in somewhere. If we put it in the infobox, here's my solution, in example form:

Average fuel economy: 30mpg (7L/100km) (?)

The (?) would link to a Wikipedia page which describes the various things which can affect fuel economy and describes which models in a line of cars are likely to experience more or less gas usage, such as wagons getting less and coupes getting more, and the effects of driving in the city or countryside, in plains or mountains, and driving styles. It's just a way that we could do it. I really don't care how it gets done, so long as it happens at all. Mewsterus (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, and would simply it further by showing only the range of fuel economy ratings for city/highway that have been certified for the vehicle (i.e., EPA, etc). Skyemoor (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on Fuel Economy in the Infobox

This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here. While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of a representative sample of Wikipedians; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally. See Wikipedia:Canvassing.

Okay. Let's bring this discussion back to the item that started it all. Fuel economy. Since Americans are losing their minds because of the recent oil prices all they think about is fuel economy, and that's all that's important.

The discussion here is about fuel economy data being placed in the infobox. All other infobox fields are irrelevant to this discussion.

Adding fuel economy to the infobox:

Support

Support. My digression into discussion of the other fields in the template was merely to point out that hardly any of the existing fields have a simple, clear-cut answer. This new field would be no different. There will DEFINITELY be problems with obtaining the information for some cars - for others there may need to be generational infoboxes to cover the whole range of cars and engines. But the point is that we shouldn't refuse to collect this data just because we can't do it easily for all models of all cars...that's true of nearly every field in the infobox. What I insist on is that if we do this, we define a couple of standards organizations and stick with them for all vehicle. Quoting the US EPA city/highway numbers and whatever the European equivalent is should suffice. This also allows us to provide both miles-per-US-gallon and liters-per-100km numbers for Europe. Sure, there is a range of numbers and EPA estimates are estimates - but so long as we are utterly consistent about where we get the data from - the numbers will allow our readers to compare one car to another. If car A has better EPA numbers than car B - then even though you won't actually achieve the EPA figure in practice, you can be pretty much assured that your driving patterns for car A will produce better MPG than those same driving patterns driven in car B. We should link the numbers to some kind of caveat that explains why you probably won't get the exact numbers listed. I would support adding top speed and power-to-weight ratios and/or 0-60mph or 0-100kph numbers. SteveBaker (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think that top speed is really only important on the Autobahn. In New York City and in Los Angeles top speed is normally traffic impeded to about 15 mph, and over 100 mph you have to keep one eye on the rear view mirror and the other on your radar detector. Most cars today are capable of going 15 mph, or 100 mph, for that matter. But please, take my word for it, don't try it out to find out, unless you are on a race course with proper support. 199.125.109.83 (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Top speed isn't literally important - but it matters to some car enthusiasts as a matter of bragging rights - and there is some truth to the statement that it tells you something about performance at lower speeds. My car will do 140mph. My wife's car will do about 105mph. At 90mph, both are operating well under their top speed - however, my wife's car is close to redline and her engine won't last long if she pushes it like that on a 300 mile Texas-style afternoon road trip. My car is barely cruising at 90mph. It is not our decision to supress information because we do not personally find it interesting. There is absolutely no doubt that some people DO find it interesting - so we can justify putting it there for that reason alone. SteveBaker (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support. Fuel economy is one of the most important attributes of a vehicle and for that reason alone deserves a spot in the infobox. For example, the Honda Insight would have the following fuel economy listing; |fuel_economy_city = 45-49 mpg EPA |fuel_economy_highway = 49-61 mpg EPA 198.151.13.8 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
weak support. At first I was all for this because these days that's one of the most important details a person will want to know about a car these days, but then I realized that each car can have a wide range of fuel economies (across years and variations). If there's a way to give a range cleanly I'm for this, but I'm afraid it might be problematic. NJGW (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Support. Agree that fuel economy is one of the most important attributes of an automobile, and that fuel economy ranges can be represented simply and accurately. Skyemoor (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Support. When you sell a new car in the U.S. you have to put a large sticker in the side window showing the fuel economy in huge numbers. It must be important. What is really important is the ball park. Is it 12 or is it 50 for example. Above 60 is not very important. You get the same benefit by making a car go from 60 to 120 mpg that you do by making one go from 15 to 17 mpg. So I wouldn't worry about the finer points of fuel economy. 199.125.109.83 (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I was asked if I was for a fuel economy box... The answer is yes. Scryer_360 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. As I have said before, but I'll reiterate: Boiling it down to a range of 10 or more MPG would make the figures meaningless and without context. They would not be of much use. Since fuel economy is, in part, a function of engine and transmission design, it makes far more sense to include that in a table with engine, tranmission, power, and torque data. --Sable232 (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment So long at the numbers come from a consistent set of sources (eg the EPA figures in the US) then even though the numbers are approximate for your particular driving style, etc - they are valid for COMPARISON between cars tested under the same set of conditions. The EPA says my car gets 33 (city) to 42 (highway) - the EPA says my wifes' car gets 19 (city) to 26 (highway). Neither set of numbers are what we ACTUALLY get - but it's safe to say that if I want to know which car to take on a long road trip then the EPA numbers are a valid guide. SteveBaker (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Too complicated value, old cars (standards ?), european vs american cars too much different and this field would come too long for infobox with all those mpg us,mpg imp and L/100 km conversions --— Typ932^{T | C} 04:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment It's only complex if we choose to make it so. We can put EPA figures in US gallons and whatever Euro standard in L/100km. That's fine because those are the units each standards body uses. We could even have a pop-open box with all of the conversions inside. SteveBaker (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Per the reasons stated in the above discussion. I do not oppose quoting fuel economy figures with other stats in appropriate tables. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Per infobox guidelines. Doesn't provide a basic understanding of a car, just a specification. swaq 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment That's not "Per MOS" - the infobox guideline doesn't say anything of the sort! Niether the word "basic" or "understanding" appears anywhere in that document! What it actually says is "they are designed to present summary information about an article's subject, such that similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format". There are three tests for what fields are valid:
1. Is the field of value? - the number of 'support' responses above says that a significant percentage of people who care about cars would say yes.
2. Will the field be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox? - yes. All cars have a 'miles-per-gallon' number - except perhaps electric cars and other more esoteric vehicles.
3. How likely is the field to be empty? - again, almost never. This is a number that's easily obtained and sourced from the EPA and other web sites.
So - please don't appeal to the MOS - it's not supporting an 'oppose' vote! SteveBaker (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Per all the discussion that's already took place on this issue. Roguegeek (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. As has been stated, too complicated and I personally feel that it's not pertinent enough to be included in the infobox.--Flash176 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Cars may have so many engine options that this field would extend the infobox' size even more than needed. If this piece of information should be included in an article, that should be placed in a separate table, not in the infobox.--NaBUru38 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment As I explained before in the debate on the Automobile project page - if "too many options" were grounds for excluding entries then nearly every entry in the present infobox would have to be excluded. So either we slim the infobox down to virtual emptyness - or we accept that in some cases the information will have to be included in generational infoboxes whilst in others it can be up-front where it properly belongs. SteveBaker (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

[edit] Fuel economy rating

Combined fuel economy mileage rating
Rating	mpg	L/(100 km)
A+	>120	<2
A	61 - 120	2 - 3.7
B	41 - 60	3.8 - 5.7
C	21 - 40	5.8 - 11.2
D	16 - 20	11.3 - 14.D
E	13 - 15	14.8 - 18
F	10 - 12	18.1 - 23.5
F-	<10	>23.5

199.125.109.83 (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That would violate NPOV so badly it's almost obscene... --Sable232 (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention original research... swa q 14:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey I have no idea how it would be implemented. I'm just saying that it makes a lot more sense to assign ranges and just indicate what range of fuel mileage a car gets. It's not original research because it is simply a way to display the data. It would be a lot less messy to just put a single letter in the infobox instead of the actual mileage, plus it makes it easier to compare vehicles by just looking to see what range of mileage they get. And if you think that giving someone an A for getting good mileage is NPOV, you really need to get a life. 199.125.109.49 (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the insult, asshole!

Arbitrarily saying something "fails" or "gets an A for good mileage" is pushing a point of view. Apparently, you consider above 40 MPG to be good. I consider above 20 MPG to be "good." I know people who consider anything above 15 exceptional.

The fact that you suggest reducing it to a "grade" makes me think the only reason you want it included at all is to show what cars get "bad" mileage and what cars get "good" mileage. That won't fly. --Sable232 (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There isn't enough room in the infobox to include both mpg and L/100km, and the range is more important than the value, so by grouping the ranges you simplify the presentation. Mileage isn't even that important to many people, recently I think it was rated 27th most important feature in an automobile, in the United States, but of course that was before gas prices went up again. I noticed that VW is coming out with a 235 mpg car in two years and Aptera a 300 mpg 3 wheel "car" next year, so for some I guess nothing less than 200 mpg is "good" mileage. However, if your favorite car is the AC Cobra, 3 mpg is "good mileage". I think Jay Leno has a car that gets less than that. He jokes that he has to shut it off when he fills it because it uses gas idling faster than what the pump delivers and the tank would never fill up. Probably not true, but it makes a good joke. The point is not to make one range good or bad, just define a range and use a letter instead of a number. You are completely misinterpreting an F as failing. There are no failing grades, just grades that are higher and lower, and only for the purpose of rating mileage. 199.125.109.51 (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There isn't enough room in the infobox to include both mpg and L/100km. Don't necessarily need both, use the rating for the region that the vehicle is targeted to. If a vehicle is rated in both rating systems, then use both rating systems, there is enough room (look at the infoboxes that show multiple engines, transmissions, etc).

the range is more important than the value By whose opinion? How many people set out to see how far they can drive, versus the number of people who are attempting to pay for their commutes?

recently I think it was rated 27th most important feature in an automobile, in the United States, but of course that was before gas prices went up again Then your (missing) reference carries no weight.

If there were a standard scale to be used, then it could be used here. I don't know of any other than the actual mileage ratings. Skyemoor (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There isn't enough room in the infobox to include both mpg and L/100km. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We can have pop-open boxes, we can link to sub-pages and length isn't actually a restriction (although it WOULD be nice to keep it within reason). I think there is plenty of room for two more lines of small-font text - one for the EPA mpg number and another for the Euro L/100km number. Many other fields have the same problem and we don't exclude them.

the range is more important than the value Rarely. Most people care more about the cost of motoring than the number of times they have to stop and fill up.

recently I think it was rated 27th most important feature in an automobile, in the United States, but of course that was before gas prices went up again Do this for me: Go to a new car lot. Look at the window on the side of the car - there is a big sticker there. What is the largest font size used for? It's the EPA MPG numbers. They are in letters at least an inch high. Things like the price, the horsepower and all of the other stuff is in a regular 10 point font. They wouldn't do that if it were the 27th most important thing. Also, many of the things that are of higher importance are things we don't even mention - the color, the 'look' of the thing, the prestige value of owning one, the resale value. Of the things we COULD put into the infobox, I bet fuel economy is one of the top three. Certainly MPG is more important than: Assembly plant, Wheelbase Curb weight and Designer. I can't imagine ANYONE caring about those things - yet all of them are in the infobox.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Empassioned plea for reason and logic. I don't think the people who oppose the MPG box are thinking rationally.

Look in the template now and you'll see "Curb weight". Now, argue for me why "Curb weight" can be justified and "Miles per gallon (EPA)" and "L/100km (Euro)" cannot?

The preceeding oppose arguments have spoken about:

Complexity - well, to specify the curb weight for a dozen different engine sizes and a half dozen model years in both pounds and kilos is PRECISELY as difficult as doing the same thing for MPG.
Space - there are plenty of other fields that are vastly less important than MPG. Let's find one that's less important and rip that out to make room. Actually - almost any of the other fields is less important. Let's dump length, width and height along with curb weight and 'assembly' - toss out 'wheelbase'. OK now we have plenty of space for even the most complicated MPG field...I don't think anyone can successfully argue that any of those fields is more important, easier to define or whatever.
Relevance - be honest, who EVER said Curb weight was more important than MPG? Ever...anyone? Maybe for a formula I racecar...but not for anything that we use this template for.
Sourceability - we can get MPG numbers right off the web for any car made since the EPA started collecting data in 1970. We have a solid reference for each and every car since then. For Curb weight we have...what? Some manufacturers show it in their spec sheets - but others don't. It's gonna be tough.
Precision - sure, we don't know the exact MPG of any given car with a particular driver, we only know it for a very particular set of conditions - the EPA (or other) test regimen. But we don't know the weight of any particular car either - it depends how much junk you have in the back - how much the driver and passengers weigh - how much gas is in the tank - whether you bought the 65lb sunroof option or not. We only know the weight according to the formal definition "Curb weight" - which has no relevance whatever to daily driving - but is a somewhat useful way to compare one car to another.

So if you decide the MPG is not warranted under those grounds then you must SURELY agree that 'Curb weight' has to go under those exact same grounds. Now, trust me, I can argue similarly strongly for almost every other field that we have right now. You cannot consistently argue that MPG is not appropriate without stripping the infobox down to about two fields: Photo and Manufacturer...and even the latter is a bit complex for some cars. SteveBaker (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, none of other fields are as important as fuel economy. I mean, Designer, who are we kidding here?? 198.151.13.8 (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As said before the mpg value is too complicated too many standards = hard to compare , too many conversions (too long field)

us mpg, imp mpg and L/100 km, how about old cars there is no standards how are those measured, so finally the mpg field would be :::real mess...Its easier to write in main article. And in USA the petrol is so cheap I cant understand how it is so important there.... :) Here it was today 1,55e/L not funny really --— Typ932^{T | C} 20:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose simplification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose removal. I have already made a few comments, and I have yet to see valid reasoning in support of removal. I will add more to my statement when I can. --Sable232 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose removal I dont see any reason to reduce or change the infobox, it is good now --— Typ932^{T | C} 18:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Fields to include

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template talk:Infobox Automobile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Additional fields to be added?

[edit] Propose simplification

[edit] First proposition

[edit] Revised proposition

[edit] The Spanish-language example

[edit] Fuel Economy

[edit] Vote on Fuel Economy in the Infobox

[edit] Fuel economy rating

[edit] Oppose simplification

[edit] RfC: Fields to include

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search