Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:16, 5 July 2014

This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Automobiles This template is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Trucks This template is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks Buses This template is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox automobile template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

style

please discuss the current style dispute here, rather than engaging in an edit war. Frietjes (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no good reason to modify the title style now, after it has been in place for at least five years and everyone has got used to it. The original edit request only contained a suggestion to implement the lower category headers, similar to those used in the French Misplaced Pages. The initial edit was done per the bold policy and then it was partially reverted, which is in accordance with the Misplaced Pages policies. After that, the following reverts were not necessary. This template is used in probably thousands of articles, therefore modifications should be done prudently and only if they are constructive. It also has to be in accordance with the related infoboxes in the project, particularly Template:Infobox company, which is used in the articles of automobile manufacturers.

The initial background color was considered too light. It was then proposed a darker version of grey, which I further enlighten a little to a lower level than the initial one and it was accepted by the original editor. Also, the blank lines are not necessary because they add to the size of the template, which is meant to be as small as possible and does not require the most readable structure as the mainspace articles. BaboneCar (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

it appears the main discussion is at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Copying from French Misplaced Pages, so we should continue the discussion there. Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I marginally prefer the outside name layout per consistency and I don't see an objective reason to change it. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

so why was it changed without further discussion? Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:V vs. Manufacturer

Template documentation says: “The manufacturer field states the company, division, or subsidiary responsible for the vehicle's engineering and development, which is not necessarily the entity assembling or marketing the vehicle.” I’m wondering where this information can be found for each and every model, in order to comply with WP:V. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody seems to know, neither do I. It will be best to have the manufacturer field removed from the infobox. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it would not; your initial question is based on the false premise that the information needs to be provided "for each and every model". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The premise isn’t false, because there is data entered in more than 50 % of the automobile articles that use the infobox; and it turns out to be wrong in many cases. That’s because contributors feel they need to complete the infobox and then simply guess who could be the manufacturer. Where should anyone check if such an assertion is right? Example: According to Opel Corsa, the manufacturer is Opel. Where would you check whether this is correct or not? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The premise is false, because we do not need to provide the information "for each and every model". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I haven’t made my point clear enough. To date, the information has already been provided, admittedly not for each and every model, but for maybe 4,000 models, maybe even more. I have not said that the information “needs to be provided” for each and every model; I just want to know if it’s possible to verify the information that has already been entered. Perhaps I should rather have written: “I’m wondering where this information can be found for each and every model that has data entered in the manufacturer field” – although I’m not sure if this really makes the problem more manageable now. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This argument is nonsense. The manufacturer can be found in most cases and this should of course have a source. In many cases the source is not mentioned or the data might be false, which should be of course corrected properly, but the manufacturer is definitely relevant information. --Gwafton (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well done, Gwafton. Reverting an edit that had been announced for over a month and calling my argument „nonsense“ without answering any of my questions… The manufacturer can just not be found in most cases, so you can’t even tell which data is wrong and which one is not. Why don’t you go ahead and find out the manufacturer of the Opel Corsa, if it’s so easy? It’s quite a popular car, so this should not be too difficult. And don’t forget to mention your source. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

if you are having problems with the sources for a particular article, then the place to address it would be in the article in question. Frietjes (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your hint, Frietjes, but I’m not having problems with the sources for a particular article. I might as well have asked for the manufacturer of the Monteverdi High Speed, for example. It’s probably just as unverifiable as most others. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I just explained that the incorrect information can be corrected and sourced properly. I don't find it as an improvement if you just eliminate one chance to tell incorrect information. A bit the same as removing traffic lights for the reason that no one could drive through red lights any more. You can find a source for the producer of Opel Corsa if you are interested in Opel Corsa, I am not. But I am interested in some other car models and removing the manufacturer from the template causes harm in those ones. I haven't met problems at finding the manufacturer's name in those articles which I have contributed. --Gwafton (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't support the removal of a infobox field that is in use in almost every car article. If you can't find a source for the manufacturer of a particular car, just don't make use of that field. It is ridiculous to claim that this is impossible to find this information as that is typically untrue. The Corsa being an Opel would suggest it's manufacturer is Opel. This is common sense; but, this is not always the case. In case it matters, the Corsa is manufactured by Opel, and I verified this "impossible to find" information in under 2 minutes on Google . OSX (talk • contributions) 01:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

My mother used to tell me that "there aren't any stupid questions". That may be true, but there are definitely silly concerns. BTW, usually the name of a car indicates manufacturer: that's what it's there for.  Mr.choppers | ✎  09:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I’m beginning to wonder why it is recommended to start a new discussion on the talk page before making a possibly controversial edit, when almost all of you only show up after the edit has actually been carried out.

@Gwafton: If removing a parameter from the template causes harm, then the article is not well written, as infoboxes “should primarily contain material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article”. Besides, you have misunderstood something: I have asked for the “manufacturer” of the Opel Corsa, not for its “producer”. This is this and that is that.

The infoboxes may include footnotes if they contain such information that is nowhere else in the article. By the way, today I drove my Opel Corsa B to petrol station to add oil and check the petrol. I checked the plate under the bonnet and it says: Hersteller — Manufacturer: Opel. How should we tell this in the infobox then? --Gwafton (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@OSX: The source you found doesn’t say anything about the “manufacturer”. Maybe you’ll try and spend another 2 minutes on Google.

@Mr.choppers: “Usually”, that’s very precise information. And “unusually”? Why do you insist on keeping the parameter in the end, if “usually” the name of the car already says it all? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this discussion take a new tack? I think the real problem is what the infobox's documentation claims is the meaning of the word "manufacturer". If you look at the article manufacturing, you will notice very quickly that it defines "manufacture" in a very different way from the way the infobox's documentation defines it. Specifically, the article equates manufacturing with production, whereas the documentation equates it with engineering or industrial design, which the "manufacturing" article says are distinct from manufacturing. Now let me comment on some specific examples. The Mercedes-Benz G-Class is, I believe, designed by Mercedes-Benz, but has always been produced by the company now known as Magna Steyr (described in its own article as "an automobile manufacturer"), and over the years has been marketed under various marque names. So which company is the G-Class's manufacturer? The editors of the article "manufacturing" would probably say "Magna Steyr", but the infobox says "Mercedes-Benz". Perhaps the "true" answer is "both". Similar comments could be made about the Porsche 986, which was designed by Porsche and, in many cases, produced by Valmet Automotive (desribed in its own article as a "service provider"). I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem. Perhaps it would involve some rewriting of the "manufacturing" article, which, at present, is not well referenced. But for all I know, the reliable sources (whatever they are) may even reveal that the real meaning of "manufacturing" is something different again. In any case, once the present problem of multiple (ie at least two) and conflicting definitions of "manufacturing" can be solved, it may be appropriate for the infobox to be edited to link the "manufacturer" parameter to the "manufacturing" article. But I certainly wouldn't support deleting it altogether. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. What should be used instead of manufacturer then? Just company? Fisker Karma is a good example about the problematics of the term – Fisker does not manufacture cars at all but purchases the service from outside. --Gwafton (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the G-class should list Steyr-Puch/Magna Steyr as the manufacturer, and the Fisker Karma is interesting for the same reason. As are NUMMI products and other things. But, these are interesting precisely because they are unusual. Normally there are no concerns and in any case I see no reason to remove the field.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

While some of you guys are quite impolite, you are very funny at the same time – except for OSX, who apparently has already left the discussion. What a pity. Maybe he has realised that he has absolutely no idea what it’s all about.

Bahnfrend is already one step further: He has recognised some kind of a problem and admits that he doesn’t know how to define “manufacturer”. But at the same time, he feels sure that he wouldn’t support deleting it altogether. (Seriously, how important can a parameter possibly be, when you even don’t know what it’s there for?)

Gwafton is even further ahead: Although he is not interested in the Opel Corsa, he has recently discovered the manufacturer of his own Opel Corsa B by opening its bonnet. Congrats! Unfortunately, the plate under the bonnet of your car is not what we would call a reliable, published source; and even if it was, we’d still have to wonder if Opel is the manufacturer of every Corsa B. (SPOILER: The answer is “no”. Prove me wrong if you can.)

But the funniest of all is Mr.choppers, who really thinks that it’s up to him to decide who is the manufacturer of the G-Class. I had a good laugh. Ask Gwafton, maybe he lets you have a look at the Builder's plate of his car, you’ll learn something… or you can read about the VIN, that should also help.

Concerning the G-Class, I don’t know if there have been several manufacturers over time (as for the Opel Corsa B), but one thing’s for sure, there is at least one vehicle (a 230 GE from 1991, to be specific) whose manufacturer is the Mercedes-Benz AG (WMI is “WDB”), as you can see on its builder’s plate here (scroll down to see all pictures). -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like all of us have the consensus that manufacturer as a term is not sufficiently precise, or at least not applicable in every car model article. On the other hand, most of us want to tell in the infobox which company is behind it. My suggestion is that we replace the title by company and in case the assembly is done by another company (Magna Steyr, Valmet Automotive, Karmann, some joint venture or whatever), it shall be told in section assembly. Have you got any other suggestions? --Gwafton (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

“which company is behind it” – behind what? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Just tell a term that you suggest using instead of manufacturer. --Gwafton (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If I wanted to rename the parameter, I would have said/done so. But there already is the name field for the brand and the assembly field for the producing company. What else should there be? The parameter is useless, unless you demand a wikilink to the brand in the infobox. I don’t think this is necessary (because there always is a wikilink in the introduction of an article), but when I had the same discussion about “Hersteller” on de:Vorlage:Infobox PKW-Modell, that was just the result: “Hersteller” was more or less renamed “Marke” (which sounds easier as it actually was). Things were a lot less complicated when “constructeur” was renamed “marque” on fr:Modèle:Infobox Automobile, by the way. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

In many cases the name of the make is very different than the producer. I got another idea: what if we just add a parameter: manufactured for. It would be the correct term in case of contract manufacturing/CKD, joint venture (such as Toyota Aygo) etc.

The German speaking Misplaced Pages has probably the worst vehicle infobox templates I have seen in the whole Misplaced Pages project and I would use them as a warning example. They are not contributor friendly and neither reader friendly. You can only tell there very narrow data and including any additional information at any parameter is made impossible. Therefore, they don't serve information seeking purposes. Those infoboxes are a result of deep thorough discussions and remind me of this joke: camel is a horse that is made after a committee proposal. My point is that we shall keep the infoboxes flexible for all applicable vehicle types and allow including all relevant main facts and figures; narrowing the possibility of telling essential information for whatever semantic reason leads to a problem, not to a solution. --Gwafton (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I’m well aware that the car infoboxes on de.wp (there once were five of them, one was deleted on my initiative, four remain) are terrible, but community over there is… “difficult” to say the least. I know what I’m talking about. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't support the so-called consensus. I think Brakehorsepower has hit on the solution. The parameter should remain as "manufacturer", but the documentation should be amended to say that the manufacturer is normally the one identified in the WMI and that any other entity contracted by the manufacturer to produce or assemble the vehicle (eg Magna Steyr, Valmet) should be identified in the "assembly" parameter. Bahnfrend (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That leads me back to my initial question: “I’m wondering where this information can be found for each and every model that has data entered in the manufacturer field.” Is there any other possibility than checking the builder’s plate (or the paperwork) to find out the WMI of a specific car? If not, we’re not able to provide this information. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The answer is that you find it in (a) reliable source(s). For example, the Mercedes-Benz G-Class: "... Daimler-Benz joined forces with ... Steyr-Daimler-Puch ... and the two companies developed the new vehicle jointly. They also established ... GFG ... to build it, remaining equal partners in the venture until 1981, when Steyr bought out the Daimler-Benz stake in GFG. Since then, Mercedes G-Wagens have been built by Steyr under contract to the German company ..." (Taylor, James (1994). Mercedes-Benz since 1945: A Collector's Guide. Vol. 4: The 1980s. Croydon, UK: Motor Racing Publications. p. 89. ISBN 0-947981-77-2.). Bahnfrend (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not a proof that Mercedes-Benz is the manufacturer of every G-Class. I can’t find the expression “manufacturer” in the text, and even if: Which is the so-called “German company”, is it the one that is mentioned throughout the text, “Daimler-Benz”? And what about the cars built before 1981 and since 1994?

Literature doesn’t care about the whole manufacturer thing in general, because it is not that relevant. As you have an advanced level of German, you might want to read this article about the Lada Taiga: Since lately, the manufacturer of the cars sold in Germany is “Lada Deutschland”, the German importer. The cars get a different VIN, with a German (!) WMI, but they are practically identical with the ones that were sold before (different wiper arms, different door sill cover).

As you can see, literally anyone could be the manufacturer, even the local importer… so what’s the point with that parameter? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It is unlike to find a such source that says some car model being exclusively manufactured by this and that producer. Just think of car producers of prior to the 1920s – new small producers started and others closed and it was not uncommon, that after one producer closed down or changed its line of business, another one bought semi finished vehicles and parts and built a small series of automobiles, without being recorded in any surviving documents. You will not find a such source that claims Daimler being the manufacturer of every G-Class and with the same principle you can question any information in Misplaced Pages. What does not exist is not necessarily mentioned in any sources. --Gwafton (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

In answer to Brakehorsepower, I have the following comments. The example I gave is just that, an example. It indicates that the G-Class was manufactured by both MB and Steyr from 1979 to 1981, and by MB from 1981 to 1994. For more up-to-date information, you just need to look at more recent reliable sources, eg: "Das Typenschild trug als Hersteller zunächst die aufschrift GFG. Das änderte sich im Herbst 1981, nach qualitativen Anlaufproblemen. Daimler-Benz zog sich aus der GFG zurück, die Zusammenarbeit beider Firmen wurde rechtlich neu strukturiert. Bis heute baut ... ... den G für Mercedes im Lohnauftrag." (Storz, Alexander Franc (2008). Mercedes G-Modell – seit 1979. Schrader-Typen-Chronik series (1st ed.). Stuttgart: Motorbuch Verlag. p. 15. ISBN 9783613029323. Template:De icon). The bibliography I recently added to the G-Class article cites the revised, 2013, edition of this book, which no doubt says the same thing. There's also little doubt that there is a reliable source (perhaps in Russian) providing similar information about the Lada Taiga. It's just a matter of finding it. As far as the German WMI for the Taiga is concerned, the web page you've linked to your post makes clear that it's a special arrangement to enable the German importer to import 1,000 cars that don't conform with the strict collision safety regulations applying to cars made in or imported into Germany in greater numbers. So the "manufacturer" of those 1,000 cars, and only those 1,000 cars, is the German importer. Bahnfrend (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gwafton: “with the same principle you can question any information in Misplaced Pages”: Yes, of course. (We even should.) This is just why I referred to WP:V in the headline and removed the parameter. It is unlikely to find sources, we agree on that. But if there are no sources, we should not try to give information by guessing. Misplaced Pages is not a quiz game.

@Bahnfrend: “So the "manufacturer" of those 1,000 cars, and only those 1,000 cars, is the German importer”: Yes, of course. I don’t understand why you are underlining that number. Lada Deutschland is one of the manufacturers of the Lada Taiga and would therefore have to be named.

I don’t really like to have the G-Class as an example, because this model is not representative at all (in fact, it is an enthusiast’s car, and therefore the amount of literature is above average), but we can go on with that. So, can you give a conclusive enumeration of the manufacturers? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You picked up my comment out of its context. What I mean is that with the same principle you can question the existence of any piece of information in Misplaced Pages. How about this one: Common dandelion is well known for its yellow flower heads. Should we remove the text if it does not refer to any page that states the dandelion flowers being only yellow, not any other colour in any case? Theoretically there could be also red or purple dandelions. Did you get my point? --Gwafton (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No, because I don’t see the connection to my question. I have not asked for something that does not exist, quite the contrary. Our articles currently state that (only) Mercedes-Benz is the manufacturer of the G-Class, (only) Opel is the manufacturer of the Corsa etc., so I request reliable, published sources that say: “Mercedes-Benz has always been the manufacturer of the G-Class”, “Opel has always been the manufacturer of the Corsa” etc.

Have a look at WP:UNSOURCED for an answer to your last question: “Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source ” -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no word only with the infobox parameter. You can add there those manufacturers which you know have produced the car model in question and for which you have reliable sources. If you later find out that there is another producer which you didn't know before, you can include that too, with a reliable source of course. I still fail seeing the problem. The readers of Misplaced Pages or any other media are expected to be able to filter information, rather than reading them as holy scriptures. --Gwafton (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time: There are virtually no “reliable sources”. You seem to ignore the fact that you all have come up with one (!) single valid source in this whole edit section: The one from Bahnfrend (Storz, 2008) which says that GFG has been the manufacturer of the G-Class from 1979 until autumn of 1981. Nothing about 1981 until today, nothing about the Opel Corsa, nothing about the Monteverdi High Speed or the Porsche 986. In the end, nothing at all to enter in any of the manufacturer fields, except for “GFG (1979–1981)”.
I think this discussion has gone on long enough to prove that: a) most people (even those who are interested in cars) have no idea what “manufacturer” really means, therefore the subject is of very low importance; b) contrary to popular belief, there are very few reliable sources that even mention the subject; c) if they ever do, their information is likely to be incomplete.
Let’s put it the other way: In case you find a reliable source about the manufacturer of a model, feel free to add it to the text (I would appreciate if Bahnfrend mentioned GFG in the article of the G-Class, by the way); but to get rid of countless entries that are unsourced and partially or completely wrong (just have a look at present-days Alfa Romeo’s and Lancia’s models), the parameter has to be removed from the template. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The parameter Manufacturer must not be removed from the template. Correcting of false information with reliable sources shall be the goal, rather than eliminating the possibility of including such. --Gwafton (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gwafton and Bahnfrend: Please consider WP:DRN#Template talk:Infobox automobile#WP:V vs. Manufacturer. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It appears that this boils down to the parameter name being misleading, in that it diverges from the /doc description. The template doc description is not really applicable to a manufacturer (in any normal sense) but rather to a automobile designer. While such a bureau is often owned by the same company which owns the factories, the distinction should be clear. Products of a given design may be built in any number of factories, usually depending on the economics of international distribution and scale. It would be unusual indeed for multiple designers to share responsibility for the top-level design, even though local variations of a world car are usually warranted for reasons of market, regulation, or production. It might be simpler to rename the parameter to either "Make" or "Designer" and adjust the /doc accordingly. Alternatively, "Lead manufacturer" would be the factory which turned out serial number 1 of a model. The discussion above of the G-series also seems to gloss over the point that the whole series is not one product but a series. Were the models in fact the work of independent designers and built in independent factories owned by independent companies? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion was closed as out-of scope of DRN, and creating a RfC has been suggested. LeadSongDog, maybe you’ll want to post your contribution again in the new section below, thanks. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I knew that nothing was going to happen… It's been your decision to keep the parameter, now it’s your task to provide a verifiable definition. (Shouldn’t be a problem with all the expertise you have.) You can be sure that I will delete the documentation and consequently the parameter otherwise. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the manufacturer field be removed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In several thousand articles using the template, data has been entered in the manufacturer field. Most of these entries are unsourced and may be partially or even completely wrong. The discussion on the talk page shows the following: 1. No one of those who have contributed knew what “manufacturer” actually means. One can assume that the same goes for most of those who have used the field (and for most readers, by the way). 2. No one could tell where to find reliable, published sources in order to verify if entries are correct. Even detailed literature about enthusiast’s cars rarely gives conclusive information. 3. No one agreed to remove the parameter from the template. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I am against of removing the parameter, because:

• The manufacturer of a vehicle model is relevant and shall be included in the infobox in order to ease information seeking.
• The manufacturers in fact are mentioned in verifiable sources in most cases.
• The ground for the parameter removal is odd in my opinion (excluding the possibility of adding false information – a reason to close the whole Misplaced Pages?).

Alternative proposal

• The parameter Company shall be added as an alternative parameter for Manufacturer, allowing a more loose definition whenever appropriate. --Gwafton (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to removing the parameter. It is a reasonable parameter to have and just because it may occasionally be misused or contain incorrect information is not a reason to remove it. As noted in the preceding discussion, just because a parameter exists does not mean it has to be used and should, like every other similar parameter in every template, be left unfilled if a verifiable source is not available. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removing manufacturer field. It's something a reader would expect to see. If some are using it incorrectly, I suggest adding documentation to the template page to clarify exactly what should be in the field and how to find reliable sources for the information. Darx9url (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of the field. Fix the data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I would like to suggest that you snowball close this RfC as "decision was to keep the manufacturer parameter." Maybe let the RfC run for a few more days, though. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 13:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal, As noted above editors should simply fix it. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As suggested by MrScorch6200, I am withdrawing the RfC. There seem to be numerous users who know how to handle the problem. That’s great news, let’s get down to work. I (partially) agree with Darx9url’s statement, the first step must be “to clarify exactly what should be in the field and how to find reliable sources for the information”. Any suggestions? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Couple Questions

Hi, couple questions how should supercharged hybrid vehicles be addressed? See Infiniti Q60 for example. Second, question could there be a way that the following information can be displayed in the infobox on vehicles that have non-hybrid/electric variants: | motor = | drivetrain = | battery = | range = | electric_range = | charging = My thought was to have a way to enable a heading for these specs that says "Hybrid Model Only" or "Electric Model only" etc. that can be enabled or disabled depending if vehicle has non-hybrid/electric versions. Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Template-Class Automobile pages
• NA-importance Automobile pages
• Template-Class Trucks pages
• NA-importance Trucks pages
• Template-Class bus transport pages
• NA-importance bus transport pages
• WikiProject Buses articles