Template talk:Infobox automobile generation

Discussion

Placement

Right now, generation infoboxes are lined up under the main infobox in the article. Should we instead intersperse them into the article? Ie, should the "TK" infobox in the example above be placed with the "TK" header in the article? --SFoskett 18:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Interspersing in the article may solve the real formatting issue I'm having with the revamp of the Chevrolet Nova page I'm working on, where lots of the [edit] links stack up in a very unusable way. Anyone have any suggestions on resolving this issue? --BRossow 15:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It can be simply resolved by adding the boxes within an invisible table like so:

{| border=0 align=right
|-
|{{Infobox Automobile
...
}}
|-
|{{Infobox Automobile generation
...
}}
|}

--SFoskett 14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --BRossow 16:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

boxcolor

copied from the my talk page --Adrian Buehlmann 12:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I just had a user ask for some help due to problems he was having with Ford Mustang SSP. I thus altered the Template:Infobox Automobile generation first so the boxcolor could be altered to match the boxcolor of the Template:Infobox Automobile. This left the default font (darkgreen) hard to read so I altered that in a similar style. If this is not to your liking and you are going to change it back can you let User:Cantthinkofausername know and why. Will cross post this to the other two editors tha worked on the template. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talk (which I copied to here, so that can be disussed here). I'm not especially interested in this box here. I came by because of the optional fields, which are the grounds of heavy discussion at WP:AUM. See also Wikipedia:hiddenStructure. No problem with your color change from my side. Thanks. --Adrian Buehlmann 12:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why change the box color as on the SSP page? I was in favor of a manufacturer-specific box color initially, or maybe a vehicle-type color like the Album infoboxes, but agreed to a simple standard color after it was discussed at the automobile project. I see no problem in letting boxcolor be modified, but the other folks agreed on a standard color... As for the optional fields, I have decided to sit out the discussion and let a decision be reached before changing anything. --SFoskett 14:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and that's why I reverted the changes earlier today. The whole point is consistency. If someone really, truly doesn't like the colors and no one else objects, then that person is free to create his/her own template or simply use basic code to replicate the table structure with the colors of his/her choosing. Adding the option opens the way for undesirable inconsistency. The only things that should be changeable are those that MUST change for accuracy (e.g. manufacturer, platform, etc.). ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 19:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Now what was wrong with the "inverted" colors of this template compared to standard Automobile Infobox? I personally found it a nice touch adding clarity and even a bit of sophistication to the articles. Is this absolutely obligatory to have this template in the same color scheme as the Automobile Infobox, or could it be a little different? --Bravada 00:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who changed it back to the dark green with white for a couple reasons. First I really feel that the inverted colors are distracting. It one thing for color to used a key element, but the visual should not distract the eye as the light green/dark green did. Secondly, from a graphic design standpoint (and subjective) it isn't an attractive combination in such a tight space - in small spaces, white or black on a compliementing color works best. There is also the visual issue that dark colors receed, while light colors move towards you; this gives the visual sense the the box sizes and text sizes are different, with the main box appearing smaller than the second box. The most effective way to indicate box one, and then box two, is use uniform colors, and increase box 1 slightly. If that can't be done, then I think that it should be one color, stem to stern. Stude62 02:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I beg to differ with you on these points. I didn't find the light green boxes distracting at all, I actually found them very helpful for realizing what is going on - the Automobile Generation infobox is a different infobox than the general Automobile one, and when both are used, light green marked it clearly to me that the former is a descendant of the latter, and not a separate Automobile infobox. To me, the purpose for "generational" infobox is to be able to intersperse the hypothetical ultralong single infobox on one vehicle (like the table used in older Renault articles) with the text for user convenience.

I have no problem with very dark green on very light green. To me, it's a variation of black on white with a green accent to help emphasize the link with the main box. Rather than difference in size, which would probably result in a tacky appearance, I believe that the "superior box - dark; subordinate box - light" is a good solution. So, we might just invert the white on dark green to dark green on white, but then light green instead of white looks sooooo much more refined.

As concerns the optical illusion thing, I guess most people realize that and don't have a problem indentifying that the font is the same, especially when the boxes aren't side-by-side. I've seen the dark/light theme used many times in well-designed publications and it usually worked very well. --Bravada 12:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

These are simple facts about colors - go to a piant store and ask them about the optical properties of color. Ask a graphic artist - the layout shouldn't fight with the text and introducing too much color does that (so does going font crazy - thankfully Wikipedia's structure controls fonts. Can you image how chaotic that would be if one could change the font of an article in an edit action?)

I just think that the simpler, the better and keeping it to a color with white (or black) lettering is easy to read, less distracting. Now I would support a unique color scheme for each make, based on the dominent color in their advertising as a way to tie a marque together npow that the logos are being policed. In this case, say Studebaker (my favorite subject) would use Dark red with white lettering because Red was the dominant color in its logos and advertising.

Personally, I hate the dark the green color, but that's my subjective opinion on the color. I'm more a dark rich red kinda guy ;-). Stude62 13:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to leave it until we run out of indents ;D

I happen to come from a family and general social circle of many graphic artists, designers and architects, so I have asked them (and also checked by myself) many times and I know the optical properties of colors, but I have also seen many APPLICATIONS of color in both print and online media. I agree that template motley is something that should be strictly avoided, but we are not talking different fonts and colors here, just one color in two shades.

I am also not a fan of British Racing Green, but check out the template header with dark green font and #EEFFEE background - it looks classy to me. This type of combinations really work - check out the PwC site for instance (currently during a reorg, just an example off the top of my head), this page in particular: [1].

Marque-colored templates might be a nice addition (Opel could use black-on-yellow for example), but would be little control over it then, and what would we do with MY favorite subject, shared models? :D OK, do take a look at what I propose and please reconsider. Thanks. --Bravada 15:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fuel Data

I just added Fuel economy and Fuel capacity to the infobox since it is a very relevant piece of generation specific data and is probably of high value to many visitors. All the MPG and fuel capacity data for cars after 1995 is available at www.nctd.com. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 04:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's great, but you need to use underscores ("_") to make the keys a single word. Also, let's keep Template:Infobox Automobile consistent with this one. --SFoskett 15:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Safety Rating

I propose adding a field for the vehicle's safety rating which changes with each generation. We have so any specs listed but of the most important now is the safety rating from EuroNCAP, ANCAP and the like. Capital photographer (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think this is too detailed of information for an infobox. It is only supposed to have "summary or overview information", see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes). swaq 15:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Automobile infobox simplification

There is currently a discussion on revising Template:Infobox automobile here: Template talk:Infobox Automobile#Propose simplification. Feel free to add your thoughts there. Once a consensus is reached this template will be updated to be consistent. swaq 15:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder why we have a separate infobox for an automobile generation. It has the exact same fields and produces the same table as Infobox automobile. swaq 15:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the need for it stemmed from long-ago-resolved template syntax issues. I remember that this idea came up once before, and I think this one was kept on the intent for future use in categorizing articles. Besides, it's not exactly hurting anything, it would be easier to find a use for it rather than removing it from every article it's used on. --Sable232 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding Coefficient of Drag

I think we should add drag coefficient. This is becoming increasingly important. Brentonboy (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The infobox is for overview and summary information. Specific details like drag coefficient should be discussed in the body of the article, if notable. swaq 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)