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
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
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What is the next step? Should I try making my first edit to a template? ... or wait for someone to see these comments and do it for us?
One catch is that I think changing 'production' to 'production_dates' or something more specific would help clarify and differentiate the fields when adding a new 'production_count' field. I assume, though, that changing 8900 existing uses from 'production' to 'production_dates' would be a pain, so perhaps leaving the original, non-specific label is best? Brian Willoughby (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I made my best attempt at adding production_count as an optional field. I refrained from renaming production to production_dates, because I'm not sure what ramifications that would have for the many existing pages. If I made any mistakes, please help by making the corrections. Brian Willoughby (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Erremm infobox automobile edits are restricted to template editors and administrators, so my first template edit was reverted. Actually, I only edited the documentation, not the template itself. I am filing an edit request now. Brian Willoughby (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the discussion, but I oppose adding this field. It isn't crucial enough information for the infobox, in my opinion. And for any current-production vehicle, it wouldn't lend itself to having sufficient context for a reader to interpret what it really means (i.e., production between what time points?). There's also the issue of raw total production numbers rarely being available, and the resultant likelihood of having market-specific sales figures placed there instead. --Sable232 (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it should only be filled when production has ceased (like the date of death field for people). And when no data is available, it can/should be left blank (as is the case with many other infobox fields).
I'm not afraid that there's a lack of data, many automobile manufacturers want to boast about their products, including the sales volume, and many auto media love to dish up data like these to have another story.
The total production number, even when not exact but rounded, says a lot about a car in terms of market success (when compared with other cars), customer popularity and societal impact (when looking at the absolute number), and many more things.
In fact I'm sometimes surprised about the production numbers of a model, either in positive or negative way. I can think of other fields in this infobox that are far less important or interesting. And also I can point at some other fields that constantly give grounds for discussion and misinterpretation of what should be in there (e.g. car class and related car models). Here it's just a number, which hardly will lead to disagreements when using the right sources. Erremm (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that a mere number really has the context needed to use for comparison.
But in any case, if it is added, I think "Number produced" would be a clearer title, and reduce the risk of confusion with the existing "Production" field (which is not practical to change). --Sable232 (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Potential changes to Charging
I have 2 proposals. I personally think that early/'foundational' pre-2020 NEVs like the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, Tesla Roadster/S/X can be exempt from some guidelines including but not limited to the ones I am proposing.
AC charging rate should be excluded from the infobox when a vehicle has DC charging available. AC charging nowadays is usually limited by each region's electricity infrastructure rather than anything to do with the vehicle, unless the manufacturer decided to spec a slower AC charging module for cost cutting. Either way, AC charging rate is not an indicator for the vehicle's performance like DC charging, which pushes the battery to the limit and can be key factor in the vehicle's notability and sales.
When available (or claimed), include the C-rate of DC battery charging, like "5C". C-rate is a very common spec in China where DC fast charging has advanced a lot, and I'm starting to see it more in mainstream English language media sources as non-Chinese brands have also started pushing charging rates higher (English technical sources already use it prolifically). While true C-rate should be defined by the 0-100% time, in reality a 'full charge' for the purposes of DCFC/C-rate is 10-80% time has started becoming an industry standard, and peak C-rates are sometimes mentioned. While "#C" could be put in the battery section for better granularity, that section is already quite cluttered while the charging section is very short. For example: "Plug-in charging DC: 278 kW, 5C"
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.
Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. Consider making changes first to the template's sandbox and test them thoroughly here before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.
Add an optional number_produced "Number produced" field.
Some vintage automobile pages have seen battles over the 'production' field, where some editors want to add the number produced as well as the date range for production. Since it's not exactly feasible to squeeze production count into the production date range field, a new field seems useful. Many vintage automobiles have long since stopped production, so the total number of production units is well known, and often this particular information is sought out when reading wikipedia.
Some discussion has already occurred in the talk section of template:infobox automobile, with one opposed (because this information is not necessary, and not always known) while others support the addition of an optional field.
My edits to the documentation were reverted, but you can see exactly what I'm asking for in the recent history of template:infobox automobile/doc. The only difference would be that I like the suggestion to use "Number produced" rather than my original "Production count" to avoid confusion with "Production dates" Brian Willoughby (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
