Template talk:Infobox automobile/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Gas tank capacity parameter
I propose an optional infobox parameter be added for fuel tank size / capacity, this would be incredibly useful for knowing at a glance how much fuel a given vehicle can store in its fuel tank. This would be similar to the Range parameter already used for electric vehicles. This parameter would apply to both hybrids (that have both a battery and a fuel tank) and vehicles that only use gas or such as its fuel source. Most vehicles share a similar gas tank capacity across different trim levels (however not across entirely different nameplates, e.g. the Kia Forte or Nissan Versa / Sentra), so I don't really think this would be an issue regarding infobox tidiness or conciseness. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 00:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
A quick update to this: There's not even a parameter available for fuel economy for city / highway / combined! Some of these design choices for this infobox make no sense at all. Battery capacity & range exist as parameters, but neither fuel economy nor fuel tank capacity exist as parameters. This legitimately makes no sense to me at all and dumbfounds me. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 14:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see a lot of value in adding this and it will clutter up the infobox even further. Most vehicles of a similar size/type tend to have a similar fuel tank size (eg compacts have small tanks, SUVs have larger tanks). On the flip side, I do see it mentioned in most dealer brochures and magazine tests. Take care that "gas" in most parts of the world means LPG or CNG (ie gaseous fuel). Stepho talk 01:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Stepho-wrs: This reasoning makes no sense. There's a parameter for battery size and range, yet not a parameter for gas tank size? The infobox seems a bit biased towards electric vehicles, which isn't fair. Electric vehicles are great, but gasoline-powered vehicles are the most popular type of vehicle, and I've looked at quite a few cars, even cars like the Kia Forte and Nissan Sentra / Versa have vastly different fuel tank sizes & capacity. By size I mean overall capacity in gallons or litres, not how small or big the tank is in actual size. It would be very useful to know at a glance what size tank an older car had, for example. And I would argue that it wouldn't clutter up the infobox further. It would be one parameter that only applies to gasoline & hybrid vehicles. There are infoboxes that have way more parameters available than this one does. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 10:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- When I say "size" I actually mean "capacity" - an old habit common to many car enthusiasts and one that I thought you shared. Liquids are not compressible, so doubling the tank size also doubles the capacity. I'm mildly against adding a new field because it just doesn't seem to be that interesting unless you like crossing deserts. My father used to do this but his Landcruiser had multiple custom tanks and he also put a few 44 gallon drums in the back. For most people, they only care about whether it will leave them stranded if they only fill up once a week. Of course, that's just my 2c. Other people may have other opinions. Stepho talk 13:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Stepho-wrs: Opposing the addition of one parameter over it not being that interesting is a very subjective take. The larger a fuel tank, the further a vehicle can go, especially if it has really good fuel economy. And a lot of people do road trips, and the further someone can go in one go before having to fill up again is a very useful detail to know. Plus, it would potentially save money on gas if you can reach your destination in fewer refills. I don't know. I just don't understand why there's opposition against adding a fuel tank capacity parameter. It's an interesting detail, and it would help out some people. And it's not fair to have a battery capacity / range parameter, but not one for fuel tank capacity. It makes zero sense in my opinion to have one parameter but not the other. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 14:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- The difference is, people don't go around comparing fuel tank capacity when choosing a car. Many EV buyers definitely would compare battery sizes as it is related to how mucn range it has. ICE vehicle buyers don't care about range, they care about fuel economy, so fuel tank capacity don't usually appear in summaries of spec sheets. Also, there are cases where the same car has different fuel tank sizes (petrol vs diesel, or vs hybrid). Andra Febrian (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Andra Febrian: There are some people that actually do care about fuel tank capacity, especially people who like going on road trips. And those people exist in a not-so-insignificant amount. So I would argue it's still useful information to have in an infobox. Some people consider that sort of information to be important. Not everyone will, but its still nice to have that information available at a glance. And you mention fuel economy, but there isn't a parameter available for fuel economy either. Makes no sense to me regarding that either. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 14:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- When I say "size" I actually mean "capacity" - an old habit common to many car enthusiasts and one that I thought you shared. Liquids are not compressible, so doubling the tank size also doubles the capacity. I'm mildly against adding a new field because it just doesn't seem to be that interesting unless you like crossing deserts. My father used to do this but his Landcruiser had multiple custom tanks and he also put a few 44 gallon drums in the back. For most people, they only care about whether it will leave them stranded if they only fill up once a week. Of course, that's just my 2c. Other people may have other opinions. Stepho talk 13:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Stepho-wrs: This reasoning makes no sense. There's a parameter for battery size and range, yet not a parameter for gas tank size? The infobox seems a bit biased towards electric vehicles, which isn't fair. Electric vehicles are great, but gasoline-powered vehicles are the most popular type of vehicle, and I've looked at quite a few cars, even cars like the Kia Forte and Nissan Sentra / Versa have vastly different fuel tank sizes & capacity. By size I mean overall capacity in gallons or litres, not how small or big the tank is in actual size. It would be very useful to know at a glance what size tank an older car had, for example. And I would argue that it wouldn't clutter up the infobox further. It would be one parameter that only applies to gasoline & hybrid vehicles. There are infoboxes that have way more parameters available than this one does. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 10:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Like top speed and acceleration time, fuel economy is rightfully not in the infobox because it varies a lot between countries standards, fuel octane, engine option, wheel size, etc. Wouldn't comment on EV range parameter, I neither agree or disagree with its inclusion in the infobox.
- I say, it adds clutter. If we give this a pass, one day someone would propose other measurements such as wheel size, tyre size, track width, headroom, legroom, gear ratio etc on the same grounds, "There are some people that actually do care", "Some people consider that sort of information to be important", etc. These arguments are not even backed up with anything whatsoever. Andra Febrian (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Then it makes no sense to have EV range or battery size either. If fuel capacity can't be added, then IMO those parameters shouldn't be present either. It gives EVs special treatment, and while like I said earlier, I like EVs a lot, they aren't the only vehicle type that exist. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 14:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I say, it adds clutter. If we give this a pass, one day someone would propose other measurements such as wheel size, tyre size, track width, headroom, legroom, gear ratio etc on the same grounds, "There are some people that actually do care", "Some people consider that sort of information to be important", etc. These arguments are not even backed up with anything whatsoever. Andra Febrian (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}}template. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 04:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)- @Paine Ellsworth: a single reply isn't grounds to deny the request; it is one against one. However, I have gone and updated the title and got rid of the edit template protected request, while a proper discussion regarding the potential addition of this parameter takes place. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 10:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Gas tank capacity parameter_2
Please don't take this personally, editor Evelyn Marie... yes, a single adversarial reply ("one against one") makes the request controversial, which does require building consensus. And as you've seen, others disagree with the addition. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good addition, it just means that at the present time consensus is against it. It happens to all of us at some point while editing this awesome reference work. Best to move on to other things for awhile, hopefully other edits on Wikipedia, and don't let this get you down. Thank you very much for your contributions, Happy New Year and Best of Everything to You and Yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 17:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm not wildly against it. But we weigh up the advantages vs disadvantages and see if the usefulness outweighs the cost. Plenty of my own suggestions have meet with yawns from the crowd too. Please continue contributing. Stepho talk 00:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Assembly plants
| Example | |
|---|---|
 1955 Buick Super Riviera coupe | |
| Overview | |
| Model years | 1954–1956 |
| Assembly | (main plant) Flint, Michigan, USA (Buick City) (branch assembly) Arlington, Texas, USA (Arlington Assembly) Doraville, Georgia, USA (Doraville Assembly) "Atlanta" Framingham, Massachusetts, USA (Framingham Assembly) Kansas City, Kansas, USA (Fairfax Assembly) Linden, New Jersey, USA (Linden Assembly) South Gate, California, USA (South Gate Assembly) Wilmington, Delaware, USA (Wilmington Assembly) |
| Designer | Harley Earl |
| Body and chassis | |
| Body style | 4-door sedan 4-door Riviera hardtop 2-door Riviera hardtop 2-door convertible |
| Platform | C-body |
| Related | Cadillac Series 62 Buick Roadmaster Oldsmobile 98 |
| Powertrain | |
| Engine | 322 cu in (5.3 L) Nailhead V8 OHV |
| Transmission | 3-speed sliding shift manual Twin turbine Dynaflow automatic |
| Dimensions | |
| Wheelbase | 127.0 in (3,226 mm) |
| Length | 1954: 216.8 in (5,507 mm) 1955: 216.0 in (5,486 mm) 1956: 213.8 in (5,431 mm) |
| Width | 79.8 in (2,027 mm) |
| Height | 62.6 in (1,590 mm) |
| Curb weight | 4,200–4,500 lb (1,900–2,000 kg) |
108.6.237.202 (talk · contribs) has made it their mission to expand lists of assembly plants in infoboxes for a number of cars, please refer to Oldsmobile 88 and Buick Super. In addition to nearly all of their edits being uncited and WP:OR as per their own admission, the plants are exhaustively listed, including names and links, making for Seas of Blue that are twelve or more lines long. As per MOS:INFOBOX, the purpose of the infobox is to summarize, to "present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." See example on the right.
To minimize the undue weight and impact of these lists I tried making those lists collapsible (with headings by country, or perhaps showing the main plant and collapsing the branch plants), so that anyone who wants to see this content may do so. IP is outraged and reverts me at every step, so I figured some more opinions couldn't hurt. IP: if I was somehow trying to upset or hurt you, I would have just deleted your edits as uncited original research, but that's not what is happening. I am trying to make WP work better and am trying to find a way to not delete information but also not give undue weight to something that is of low interest to many.
Sable232 suggested starting a discussion here to determine what number of plants is reason to collapse a list. For me it is somewhere around 8-10 lines of text (nb, not 8-10 plants; 8-10 lines of text), but this would vary depending on the article. When there are eight generations and they are all pretty much built in the same group of plants, I would collapse at a lower number; if there is only a single generation I would leave a higher number visible. For a car like the Renault 9 and 11, where nearly every plant is in a different country, collapsing it would not save much space. Thank you, Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Material that does not appear in the article and is not sourced should not appear in the infobox. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and other guidance on that page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd consider trying to make the information more concise as well. At one time, only the city and country or city and province/state were included, but in many articles that's expanded to include the name of the plant as well. I don't think all of that is necessary, and most readers would be looking for a link to the plant more so than the city it's in, so it would make more sense to omit the city name. In most cases, the plant is named after the city, and in the ones where it isn't, is it really that relevant to any particular vehicle's article that the Ford Kansas City Assembly Plant is actually in Claycomo, not Kansas City? I wouldn't say so.
I envision it looking something like this:
- Buick City (Michigan, USA)
Arlington Assembly (Texas, USA)
Doraville Assembly (Georgia, USA)
- Buick City (Michigan, USA)
Alternately, putting the country of manufacture as a "heading" with the plants beneath:
- United States:
Framingham Assembly (Massachusetts)
Fremont Assembly (California)
Canada:
Oshawa Assembly (Ontario)
Sainte-Thérèse Assembly (Québec)
- United States:
It would bring the number of lines of text down, from two lines per location in most cases to only one in most. Granted, this only works where there is a plant article to link to, but where there isn't, only the location is present anyway and there isn't an issue. I think that this, combined with Mr.Choppers' proposal to collapse a list exceeding 10 lines of text, will go a long way.
In situations where the plant is a joint venture (NUMMI, CAMI, etc.) the city and state would have to remain, but these are less common situations (and short facility names). --Sable232 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Predecessor/Successor Section
Have there been any clarifying discussions on the predecessor/successor sections about direct vs indirect successors and spiritual successors? I'm curious about what the process to determine what a successor is. Is it decided by official press releases/interviews from the manufacturer? Is it decided by automotive publications? And how are indirect successors handled? I recently removed the successor/predecessor link between the SLS AMG and the AMG GT because Mercedes said the AMG GT is not a direct successor to the SLS (they occupy different classes), but left the current gen SL as the successor to the AMG GT because Mercedes said it is (even though they're arguably different classes) and i'm wondering if that's the correct call. ~~ TKOIII (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)