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 172.58.19.101 (talk) at 08:53, 22 September 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Should both kerb weight and dry weight be written into the kerb weight field or only kerb weight ?

In most articles' infoboxes the weight field contains only kerb weight but in some articles it contains both kerb and dry weight like in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_720S. How should we handle the weight entry ? Drachentötbär (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As always, it's contentious. The dry weight is almost useless because a vehicle cannot function without fluids. But the manufacturer get's penalised in the reviews if it adds more reliability (and weight) by adding a bigger oil sump or radiator. Also, do we measure with the fuel tank near empty, half full or full? Once again, the manufacturer gets penalised by providing you with a larger fuel tank. A 100 litre fuel tank effectively adds 50 kg compared to a similar car with only a 50 litre tank. It's your choice whether to drive with it near empty, full or somewhere between but if measured with a full tank then the fuel economy figures come out bad for their nice thought of giving you the choice.  Stepho  talk  04:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's necessary to inform the readers about the variations in the vehicle weight. That is why the figures are there. Plus the infobox template doesn't prohibits the use of dry weight like Drachentötbär said in his reason while removing the dry weight figure.U1Quattro (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template is defined by stating what belongs inside, not by explicitly listing everything which shouldn't be there (which would be impossible).
It's obvious that the kerb weight value and not dry weight belongs behind "Kerb weight" in the infobox; "Kerb weight 1,283 kg (2,829 lb) (dry) 1,437 kg (3,167 lb) (kerb)" like currently in the McLaren 720S infobox looks wrong.
According to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE infoboxes are there to summarize key facts from the article in short form without unnecessary content. Dry weight can be estimated from kerb weight, putting it into the article body is enough. Currently almost no cars have dry weight in the infobox, for consistency the others shouldn't either.Drachentötbär (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How often is dry weight listed for a vehicle? I almost always see curb weight only, dry weight very rarely. I'm not necessarily opposed to including dry weight as a secondary figure in the infobox field (e.g. "Kerb weight | 1,437 kg (1,283 kg dry weight)") but I feel there'd need to be a very good reason to include it - as in why dry weight is that important to the car. Curb weight is used because it's a meaningful real-world value of the car in its operational state. I can't see how dry weight would be important enough to warrant mention in the infobox. "Drain all the fluids and then weigh the car" would be meaningless to the average reader without an explanation (which, realistically, should place the information in the article prose where it can be explained). --Sable232 (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then according to your logic, the infobox should also state the dimensions of the base model only and not the other variations of the model, just because they don't belong there. This logic incorrect and is against the reader's interest. Sable232, manufacturers weigh the car this way, not editors like you are imposing.U1Quattro (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're incorrect. The template page explicitly advises to list separate data for each body style and even shows this in the sample infobox, so they do belong. Kerb weights of different body styles fit into a kerb weight labeled folder, dry weight doesn't. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the original question, I think it is best to stick a single figure for the weight field. Along with the interest of simplicity, curb weight has the widest use (and thus, the easiest chances of proper verification...) --SteveCof00 (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dry weight isn't a made up figure. It's measured by the manufacturer.U1Quattro (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True. but dry weight is like the old Horsepower#SAE_gross_power measurements that were made with the water/oil/fuel pumps disconnected, no air filter, etc - a totally measurable figure provided by the manufacturer but bearing no relationship to what you drive on the road and destructive to the engine. Practically nobody uses gross figures HP anymore. Similarly, a car with no fluids isn't driveable on the road. I believe some manufacturers have drained the fluid from the battery, gearbox and diff to get a lower dry weight.  Stepho  talk  22:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your description is true but there are some articles that state only dry weight, such as the Lamborghini Sesto Elemento. The car weighs 999 kg (dry). Plus the infobox guidelines don't prohibit the use of dry weight as well. So there is no point in arguing.U1Quattro (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drachentötbär the infobox doesn't have a "dry weight" folder and neither it restricts one to use weight with fluids only.U1Quattro (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
U1Quattro@, some articles also have bad spelling, so we should allow bad spelling and there is no point in arguing. Everything is always up for discussion. If would use only the wet weight if it is available. If the wet weight is not available but dry weight weight is, then I would use dry weight as a fall-back position. Similar to how we use the factory production date (ie when the production line started) but fall-back to the first sales date if that is the only date available.  Stepho  talk  21:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not supporting wrong spelling at all. I just don't see a reason of removing dry weight when it is explicitly used in many articles around Wikipedia.U1Quattro (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is that other articles do it, therefore it's okay. The same article can be used for many sins (eg bad spelling). It's the same as saying "Yes officer, I was speeding but other people were speeding too". It is a very weak argument.  Stepho  talk  11:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dry weight is not a subcategory of kerb weight so it doesn't belong into the kerb weight infobox place, even if we don't have other numbers. Kerb weight definitions all include driveable condition so readers would be confused or associate dry kerb weight just as kerb weight with an empty tank but that's not how it's used. Dry weight is just a fantasy number with no standard at all with the main purpose of faking a better power-to-weight ratio. Putting it into the article outside the infobox is enough.Drachentötbär (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The manufacturers use dry weight and the power-to-weight ratio is based on that figure. Therefore your presumption about it being a fantasy number is incorrect.U1Quattro (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dry weight is like weighing a car without the engine. It can be measured and published but it's useless to most people (except those who want to put in a different engine). It does not represent the vehicle as it is used by the owner.  Stepho  talk  09:14, 7 February 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_automobile&oldid=917106595"