Template talk:Infobox automobile

Doors

When was the "doors" field added? Just saw people adding this, which typically duplicates info from the bodystyles field. Seems pointless to me, and actually a negative as it adds more non-information which merely takes up space.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not see it often, but when I do it's usually to list scissor or gullwing doors, but never sliding doors. I'm undecided on whether it really deserves a slot in the infobox, but an argument against removing it is that it is used only occasionally, but with different information than the bodystyles field. I support delisting the field in situations with conventional doors, of course. Needlesballoon (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I was the one who brought back the doors section in a lot of car articles to link to what “style” of door a car used (scissor, butterfly, gullwing, etc) when they used a non standard door style. Looking back, i’m not sure whether I still like this change. I’m undecided on whether it should remain in the infobox or should be moved to the main text of the article. For a lot of articles, I just wasn’t sure how to integrate it smoothly into the text, so I included it in the infobox instead. TKOIII (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 October 2024

Currently label39 is set to one of two values:

1. If the incoming field 'sp' is set to "UK", then label39 is set to [[Curb weight|Kerb weight]] (piping the UK spelling to a redirect with the US spelling).
2. else, it is set to [[Curb weight|Curb weight]] (unnecessarily piping to a redirect with the same spelling).

Given that both Kerb weight and Curb weight redirect to the same article (Vehicle weight), can we please change the code to produce just those exact plain links without the pipe.

That is (I think), can we change this line:

| label39  = [[Curb weight|{{#ifeq:{{{sp|}}}|uk|Kerb|Curb}} weight]]

to this:

| label39  = [[{{#ifeq:{{{sp|}}}|uk|Kerb|Curb}} weight]]

Which (I think) will set label39 to either [[Kerb weight]] or [[Curb weight]] depending on the value of 'sp'. Thanks, -- DeFacto (talk). 19:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: @DeFacto: The distinction is that there is currently a non-breaking space before "weight". We could wrap the whole thing in {{nowrap}}, but I'm not sure that's really any better than just piping the link. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ahecht, I don't understand where you say there is a non-breaking space, and why, if there is one, it will not also be there after this change. Please explain further. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto  Done Oops, you're actually completely right. My apologies. The code in the template is | label39 = [[Curb weight|{{#ifeq:{{{sp|}}}|uk|Kerb|Curb}} weight]], which prevents the words "Curb" and "Weight" from being on different lines, but it turns out that a wikilink to [[Curb weight]] actually works just fine (example: Curb weight). I though I'd tried that before and it didn't work, but I must've made some other mistake as well. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ahecht, thanks for resolving that and sorry about the confusion over the nbsp. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be slightly cleaner to do your suggestion but there is no urgent need to change. Both forms go to the same target - I made a minor change to Kerb weight so that it redirects to the exact same place as Curb weight. Also, I don't have permission to change the template. All this is transparent to both users of the template and to readers.  Stepho  talk  07:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs, the template change has been made now, so all is well. I added the spelling option more than 16 years ago, but no longer have access to change it either. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

No prob.  Stepho  talk  15:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Battery entry documentation guidelines

I have a proposal to add info and limit length/clutter of the Battery section by adding some guidelines/rules. The following are my proposed guidelines, but not the exact wording of the documentation entry itself.

Each battery entry should be listed with (if known):

1. Capacity in kWh only (no conversions to MJ, and the kWh unit should not be linked)
2. Name of cell/pack technology, italicized (GM's "Ultium", CATL's "Qilin", BYD's "blade", etc., not "CTC"/"cell-to-chassis")
3. Chemistry, in acronym or abbreviated form ("NMC", not "Lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxides battery"; "Li-ion", not "Lithium-ion"; "LFP", not "Li-ion NMC", only list Li-ion when more specific chemistry is unknown)
4. Manufacturer or supplier ("CATL", "FinDreams", "LGES")

The first instance of each parameter other than #1 should be linked if possible, and following instances should not be duplicatively linked.

Justification: I see entries with painfully long written out chemistry names instead of acronyms, and several instances where "Lithium-ion" is listed when existing cited sources specify the exact chemistry. I also think the kWh unit should not be linked, consistent with all the other units found in infoboxes. I understand that kWh is not a common everyday unit like kg or mm, but neither is PS in power output, and kWh (and Wh) is the worldwide standard for units of electrical energy used in household electricity bills (AFAIK). Also, MJ is not a widely used unit in the context of battery capacities and should discouraged from use.

I chose this order to mirror how engines are listed (capacity = displacement, cell tech name = engine codename, chemistry = aspiration/turbo). While #2 and #4 might seem a bit redundant, #2 info is often unavailable while #4 info is usually available.

Debatable details: These don't need to be agreed upon for the rest of the proposal to continue, and could simply be left out.

For #1, should the capacity be required to be rounded to the nearest tenth place? Chinese regulatory listings often go to two or even three decimal places (82.732 kWh)

For #1, should gross and net/usable capacity be listed, and is one preferable? Not a super common problem, but GM and BMW sometimes list net/usable rather than gross.

For #3, should referring to NMC battery chemistry as "Ternary" be discouraged? In China, by far the leader in battery manufacturing & technology and EVs, NMC chemistry is often referred to as 'Ternary' or 'Ternary lithium', named so because of the three cathode chemicals, rather than the chemicals' name itself. In my opinion, they should be shortened to NMC to reduce clutter.

Should battery voltage/power electronics voltage be listed here (i.e. 400V, 800V)? It can often vary with different packs in the same car model, but adds clutter. It could also be listed under a new EV-specific 'Electrical architecture' section, where switch type/material (i.e. SiC, GaN) can be listed, but could be too niche a detail. I would equate it to the ICE world as port vs direct injection in a petrol engine, as it mainly affects efficiency while driving, but differs because it has a large affect on DC charging speeds.

Should a heading be used for several packs with common details, similar to how Petrol and Diesel engines have separate headings? For example, 4 different capacities of packs that are all FinDreams blade LFP. Needlesballoon (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Chemistry, in acronym or abbreviated form ("NMC", not "Lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxides battery"; "Li-ion", not "Lithium-ion"; "LFP", not "Li-ion NMC", only list Li-ion when more specific chemistry is unknown)

• In the context of car HV batteries, I think "Li-ion" is rarely used - I prefer "lithium-ion".

For #1, should gross and net/usable capacity be listed, and is one preferable?

• Since most manufacturers list gross but not net (correct me if I'm wrong), I think we should avoid using net in the infobox.

For #3, should referring to NMC battery chemistry as "Ternary" be discouraged?

• "Ternary" should never be used because I never see that being used outside the Chinese market context - I think in Mandarin they prefer to use that word than NMC but as far as I know the rest of the world rarely use it.

Should battery voltage/power electronics voltage be listed here (i.e. 400V, 800V)?

• No, also it is often not listed in the spec sheet. I usually prefer listing AC and DC maximum charging speed in the "Plug-in charging" field.

Should a heading be used for several packs with common details, similar to how Petrol and Diesel engines have separate headings?

• Just stating my personal preference here: somehow it looks kind of odd compared to Petrol and Diesel headings.

I agree with the rest of the proposal.

I'm also wondering how should we handle the "Electric range" field when the vehicle has multiple battery sizes and configuration. Should we list it one by one? (not preferable). Should we mention a range of number? (for example: 350-520 km (xxx-xxx mi)) Or maximum? (example: 520 km (xxx mi)). If there's WLTP/WLTC, NEDC and CLTC ranges, which one is prioritized? Should we list all three? Andra Febrian (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I was hoping to reduce "lithium-ion" to "Li-ion", but I agree with your point that the latter is rarely used. I agree that gross capacity should be the default, I believe that it's only GM vehicles that exclusively quote usable capacity, which can be denoted since it is a special case. I agree with using NMC and not Ternary. Putting voltage in the relatively uncluttered charging area is a good idea; it is becoming much more common recently for manufacturers to quote pack voltage (especially 800V+) as more people understand the implications on efficiency and charging. I think viable cases for using a heading for the battery section to save space are quite rare anyways, so we don't need to document rules for it. I used it for the Yuanhang Y6 to prevent entries from spilling over into the next line, but I don't remember any other cases.

Since Electric Range is such an important factor in an EV's design, I think they deserve 2-3 lines rather than a single line like the standard Range. I generally like grouping ranges by battery size, since most vehicles have 2-3 max, grouping all the small range variations from all-wheel drive, wheel/tire choices, etc. into a range on one line.

Multiple test cycles complicates things, I'd personally favor WLTP over CLTC when possible since it aligns better with English wiki readers, but I don't know how to deal with EPA vs WLTP. Another complication is how to display mid-cycle facelift models; unlike ICE models which usually get a minor powertrain update in the form of a power increase with the same engine, EVs do similar with entirely different battery packs, with a different capacity and even supplier, and sometimes a completely new motor since they are so easy to interchange, and all this affects range too. An ICE facelift is going to add at worst another engine entry to the infobox, while an EV facelift could potentially mean 3-8 more entries total depending on the situation! Needlesballoon (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Another debatable detail:

How should battery packs with a hybrid chemistry be displayed? They are not very common at the moment, but are starting to increase in popularity after CATL introduced their Freevoy battery pack tech for PHEV/EREVs, which mix in some Sodium-ion cells alongside normal NMC or LFP cells for improved cold weather performance. So far, at least seven vehicles had it at launch late last year, with thirty expected this year. Hybrids of NMC and LFP also exist but are rare, but those are easy to format as "NMC-LFP". Sodium-ion cells don't have an established commonly known chemistry (like the non-lithium elements in NMC and LFP), which precludes any abbreviation other than "Na-ion", so the options I can think of are "LFP-Sodium-ion" or "LFP/Sodium-ion", and I'm unsure whether to include the word "hybrid" to clarify. Needlesballoon (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Production Count

I think there is utility to adding a(n optional) field for the Total Production Count for a particular vehicle. Some Wikipedia users append a total production count number to the Production field in the Infobox. Technically, the Production field is a date range and is not appropriate for production count, so some addition to and clarification of fields could help. Then we could have both Years of Production and Total Production without the awkward combination of the two into one field. Granted, many cars are manufactured in the millions, so a meaningful value might be impossible to find - thus the field can be optional for mass-market vehicles. However, many exotic and rare cars were only produced in very small numbers, and the exact count is known. Wikipedia articles about these limited-production vehicles would benefit greatly by highlighting the Production Count in the Infobox, especially since such numbers are almost always an important part of the article. Brian Willoughby (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm all for adding the production count field. The infobox template in e.g. French has it too. Erremm (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)