Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox automobile

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Schengen2018 (talk | contribs) at 07:29, 14 October 2019 (→Body style link: Tank capacity is missing in template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tank capacity is missing in template

Tank capacity is missing in template Schengen2018 (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Body style link

Why does the link for the body_style parameter go to Car classification and not to Car body style? --bdijkstra (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reason that I can see. Feel free to change it.  Stepho  talk  00:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would if I could, but I'm not a template editor and it looks like I don't meet the guidelines for granting. --bdijkstra (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, same problem for me. I have requested to have my permission upgraded.  Stepho  talk  00:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 21 May 2019

Please add "(s)" to the "Designer" label as some cars have more than one designer. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many other fields hold multiple entries (e.g Type, Engine, Transmission, Length, Curb weight). We should be consistent. The current usage is consistent; are you advocating for addition of "(s)" to all fields that could reasonably have multiple values? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you put it that way, sure, why not? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is unnecessary. Please give some examples of "some cars have more than one designer". Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 11th gen Chevy Suburban? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see they couldn't settle on a team leader(s). Where did Jamil come from? not in the cite. Is this depth of info of genuine interest to anyone, should it be provided in WP? What about the engines and transmissions and did the team do the interior too? Eddaido (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is only required for controversial edits, not minor copyedits. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 15:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 20 September 2019

Please add track attribute below wheelbase. This is an extremely important attribute similar in importance to wheelbase. Wheelbase is the measurement of center of front to rear tires, and track is the measurement of center of left to right tires. Here are the 2 articles on wikipedia describing wheelbase and axle track:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheelbase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axle_track

Thank you. IceIR (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never requested a protected page be edited. Please forgive me if I am going about this the wrong way. Specifying wheelbase but not track is equivelant to specifying length of vehicle but not width. Even the article for wheelbase (see my original post) defines track in it's sole picture, and the article for track uses the same picture. I would assume most of the admins for the automobile infobox have automobile knowledge can see this a common sense request and frankly an oversight to not have included it in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.19.101 (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you want to do is propose the change on this page, then you can get some wider exposure by asking users to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. If users agree that this change is needed you should have no problems getting it added. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is a controversial request. Why list the distance from the front to back wheels but not the distance from the left to right wheels? This should have been added along with wheelbase in the first place. If this infobox included overall vehicle length but not width, I do not think it would be controversial to ask that vehicle width be included also. 172.58.19.101

  • Support: This was asked for many years ago and rejected as feature creep. But both then and now, I think it is a good idea and as important as wheelbase. I suspect that wheelbase got in so easily because the US car taxes and license fees used to be based on wheelbase - hence it was of high importance to Americans.  Stepho  talk  10:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From an outside POV track makes sense to me. As soon as I think of sports cars or handling... I don't recall ever seeing automobile wheelbase (any size) relating to taxes or fees here. Wheelbase was sometimes used for sizes (compact, intermediate, full) in the 50s-60s but I think that was an industry thing. (IceIR can't know me, I think they are asking anybody in GF). Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I am editing articles for 4WD trucks and Jeeps, and want to add track to their infoboxes.IceIR (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, front and rear as separate entries.  Stepho  talk  10:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, so there's no misunderstanding, I am the same user as the above IP address of 172.58.19.101. Anyway, I would certainly prefer to have options for both front and rear track than no option for track at all. I would probably prefer to not have separate entries, as you can easily put both values anyway, much like is done when vehicles have multiple wheelbase options. The motivation is if the vehicle does have the same front and rear track, it would be neater to only list the track once. That said, I do not feel strongly about this, and having attributes for both front and rear track is very reasonable and probably the better idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceIR (talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. IceIR, you've only solicited input from one of the three projects which have an interest in this template, and you've barely waited 4 days. That doesn't look like a thorough attempt to establish consensus. Informing all 3 projects of this discussion, and waiting 7 days (unless there's WP:SNOW) would be the normal expectation of an impartially run discussion.
I'll also remind you of the caution I placed on your talk page - "the use of both an account and an IP address ... in the same setting ... may result in your account being blocked from editing". Cabayi (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious. After 13 years of extensively working on WP automobile articles, I don't know what the other 2 projects are.  Stepho  talk  11:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no idea what the other projects are, and there have been no mention of them here. I have clearly stated that this was my first edit request, so I don't know why you think I should assume 7 days is considered a standard time to wait for consensus. Is there no standard when it comes to contacting a user about an issue before placing cautions on their talk page? I was simply logged out and somewhat obviously not attempting to appear as a different user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceIR (talk • contribs) 03:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stepho-wrs, IceIR, scroll up. The other projects are listed at the head of this page.
IceIR, how should anybody know why you're no logged in? And no, there's no standard. Cabayi (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, also at the head of the page is "assume good faith", among other things. I've read over the link where you claim using an IP and account in the same setting is against the rules. It only says this is not allowed if someone is intentionally trying to appear as 2 different users. I have also explicitly stated that the posts above using an IP were mine. Before that, the tone, wording, and formatting of my posts made it very clear that I was the same user. IceIR (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxed

I have added some code to the /sandbox. I have used track as the parameter name, and the label links to axle track. Some tests can be seen at /testcases including an example of how different rear/front values can be displayed. Comments invited — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have disabled the request due to lack of response. I need confirmation that track is the best choice of parameter and that everything looks okay with the tests linked above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Designer field

Is an exhaustive list of the team of designers is acceptable to add in the infobox or a separate mention of it in the design section is more appropriate? The infobox template is vague at this point and does not explain what should be included in the list of name(s) of designer(s). Either the people who were lead designers or the design director, supervisor and other people who were supervising it. U1 quattro TALK 14:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been nailed down but it is generally assumed that it is the project leader, the stylistic designer of the body or the lead engineer (drive train, suspension, etc). The stylistic designer of the bodywork is the most common. Of course, others may have a different interpretation and consensus may change all this anyway.  Stepho  talk  22:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the infobox is intended to be an overview, it should be as concise as possible - in most cases, this would be the "lead designer" of the body design as per reliable sources. There may be instances where there were two people who would be stated to have shared equally in it; as long as sources back that up it would be fine. However, including several people and detailing which aspects they were involved with is too much for the infobox and is better suited to the prose. Including years in this infobox field should also be discouraged - the context to show what it means is lacking, so that's another situation where it's best explained in prose. --Sable232 (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the explanation of this parameter on the template page, it says to stick with the name of the exterior designer (if known). For the most part, sticking with one name is best (if a separate designer is involved with an update of the model, it is worth including). Other aspects simply clutter up the infobox and are best used for expanding the prose. (in the Corvette C7 example from above, one name is perfectly fine, with the others remaining in prose). --SteveCof00 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the clarification. Now the only thing left is to give the other editor this explanation and we're done with this issue.U1 quattro TALK 03:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should be a hard and fast rule, exterior and interior designers, those who designed variants all may be relevant. I don't think a one size fits all approach to this is needed, whether someone should be mentioned in the infobox should be left to those editing the page. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this Toasted Meter. The whole design team doesn't need a mention in the infobox and that is exactly what this user is doing. Given this "I am always right" attitude of most editors here, edit wars will take place over what should be added. What others have said is absolutely correct. Design director/managers and project heads shoud be written in prose only. We need to keep the infobox limited to its purpose, instead of cluttering it with information that is best suited to prose.U1 quattro TALK 13:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_automobile&oldid=921156965"