This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Please add |suspension, |spec_label and |speed (all 3 fields are already included in Template:Infobox weapon but still missing in infobox automobile!) The fact that the M939 truck article is still using the infobox weapon instead of automobile due to these 3 fields missing (although infobox automobile already exists since 2006) is kind of shocking. D4n2016 (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two words: scope creep. If we added every field ever suggested then the infobox would be massively long. It's job is to present a summary of the vehicle, not to list every aspect of it. Therefore, we try to keep it short. Even so, some infoboxes get overloaded with specs for every engine, every trim level and every possible length but we do our best to keep it short.
|suspension= could be justifiable.
|spec_label= can probably use the |model_code= field.
|speed= is dependent on so many variables (engine, suspension, tyres, fuel, engine map, gearbox, road surface, ambient air temperature, etc) that it becomes meaningless. Often, it only applies to a single variant of the vehicle. Stepho talk00:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Ride height or ground clearance is an important parameter, it can be added in the "Dimensions" section of the infobox. Ride height is important for offroading, and also in developing countries where speedbreakers and potholes and uneven roads call for the gap from the ground. Crashed greek (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more clear. Is there a reliable source that uses a standard method of measurement to determine ground clearance? Do reliable sources regularly report ground clearance using that standard method? If so, please provide a link to those sources, and the methodology, here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 Oct 2023 User:TKOIII posted the following topic, now in Archive 9:
"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)" There were no responses when the original topic was posted, but I wanted to revive this subject. I have the same questions. Bahooka (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC) Bahooka (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current template states "The predecessor field states the manufacturer and model name of the vehicle that the subject vehicle replaced, if applicable." It makes no mention of a spiritual predecessor/successor, often separated by decades. The term is sometimes used by reliable sources, but is that what we as a WP community want in this parameter? Personally, the idea of a spiritual predecessor/successor seems pretty vague and subjective to me. I would be interested to hear from other editors and then specifically address the consensus on this topic in the template instructions. Bahooka (talk)
Thanks for reviving this discussion. My personal opinion is that for spiritual successors, they should be allowed to be included if they're marked as such, and only if there's either official manufacturer confirmation that its a spiritual successor, or otherwise strong journalistic consensus from major sources. For the other cases mentioned, I have no particular opinion and am curious what other editors think. TKOIII (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me, "spiritual successors" are best left out - it's usually just marketing speak. Even more straight forward predecessors and successors can be quite subjective; read around a bit and you can easily find four or five cited ancestors for many cars, whether reasonable or not. I don't have a good way to fix this unless you all want to give me dictatorial powers to determine predecessors and successors for all cars. Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mr.choppers, about "spiritual successor", and think it is puffery and subjective, and should not be used. I think successor and predecessor should only be used if there is a clear and recognised replacement of one model (the predecessor) with another (the successor). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreeing with Mr Choppers. Spiritual successor is more to do with what marketing wants. It is also often after a gap of 10-20 years. And some cars like the original Toyota AE85/86 were originally conceived as just a low budget, bet both ways, holdover from the previous generation (with low hp engines like the 3A-C on the option list) - just in case the switch to FWD failed. The much later Toyota 86 was conceived to fill the place of what the original unintentionally became - ie a light RWD car with a revvy engine that took later engine generations. Stepho talk00:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. These fields fall under a heading of Chronology; It should be a simple matter of what came before and after without the need for interpretation. Say the Model 16's predecessor was the Model 14, and its successor was the Model 18 and it was a clear contiguous one-after-the-other progression. But if some people think the Super 130 GT RS HO from two decades later happens to sort of fill a similar market niche as the 16 Sport and is a "spiritual" successor, that's subjective - I don't think the infobox should go into that. --Sable232 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 