Jump to content

Talk:Hyundai i20 R5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 10 July 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

– The updated versions for the Rally Pyramid rules, which are WP:COMMONNAMES. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: when items are deleted (struck through) in move requests, it causes a "malformed request" that must be fixed. So the strikethroughs have been removed and the target titles have been replaced with question marks (?) to repair the malformities. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Looking only at the Hyundai, it appears that these are not the same car. Eg from Hyundai's website you can buy a brand new i20 R5 [1], and I was able to find an article talking about how the development process for the Rally2 version is different to the R5 [2]. For the Ford (where the new name is not mentioned in the article as yet), it appears similarly not the same, eg [3] "Replacing its hugely successful predecessor". If these are to be grouped together (or if the Citroen and Skoda are the same car, as I haven't investigated these) then it is likely too soon to determine the common name, which the nom has not provided any evidence of (if we are considering these as "evolution" models in some sense, I believe typically this has been handled on Wikipedia by keeping the first name but that doesn't necessarily mean we should do that here of course). A7V2 (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @A7V2: You are right in terms of Hyundai and Ford, but as for Citroën and Škoda, they are just update/rename versions. Sources are here: [4] [5] According, I would like to change my request as moving Citroën's and Škoda's articles while creating new articles for Hyundai and Ford Hyundai (i20 N Rally2), Ford (Fiesta Rally2) and Škoda (Fabia Rally2 evo or Fabia R5 evo/Rally2 evoFabia R5/Rally2 evo). Unnamelessness (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a discussion is required to create the Hyundai and Ford articles so long as there are enough sources available (perhaps strike those out in the nomination?). I still don't see a reason to move the {Citroen and the Skoda given they are evolution models, as this was not done for, for example, the Red Bull Racing RB16 or the Audi R15 TDI. A7V2 (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A7V2: It is not just update versions (like the case of Škoda Fabia R5 and Škoda Fabia R5 Evo), but also rename for the new Rally Pyramid regulation. (see sources above) That makes the new names WP:COMMONNAMES. Because WP:MOTOR usually keeps the original name, that does not mean we should do the same here. Also, WP:TITLECON with the Hyundai and Ford models. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An official name change absolutely does not mean the common name has changed. From WP:COMMONNAME, the common name is "as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" (emphasis mine), so WRC and manufacturer articles aren't really relevant to determining the common name. I don't think we are going to agree on whether we should keep the articles at the old, not evolution names, so I will list this discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport to get a wider range of views. A7V2 (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A7V2: It is not just official name changes. e-wrc, wrc.com, thecheckeredflag, dirtfish, motorsport.com, autoevolution.com, topgear, autosport.com and the list goes on. By contrast, the R5-titled articles were basically published before 2019, when the Rally Pyramid rule was announced. (You can google it if you don't believe) So I really don't understand why is that difficult to acknowledge the common names of Rally2. Is it because you are not familiar with the rallying-topic articles? Or just becasue you don't like it? Unnamelessness (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the thinly veiled personal attacks to yourself, there is no need to take this personally. I will be very clear but I don't intend to dedicate much more time to this. Firstly, you wrote "It is not just update versions (like the case of Škoda Fabia R5 and Škoda Fabia R5 Evo), but also rename for the new Rally Pyramid regulation. (see sources above) That makes the new names WP:COMMONNAMES." I was directly responding to this statement when I said "An official name change absolutely does not mean the common name has changed". The statement you made here regarding the common name was not correct. I was not saying (with my response) that the common name(s) had not changed, but instead I was saying that that was not a reason for it to change. I should also emphasise here that within the article, both names should be used as appropriate, as is the case with any evolution model. As to your sources, of course when referring to evolution models specifically, a source will use the "new" name. For the other sources: the WRC article isn't really relevant as it is not independent. The The Checkered Flag article makes it clear that the car "builds on the successful C3 R5". Dirtfish (a reliable source?) "Despite those changes, Grandclaudon insists it’s evolution not revolution for the C3 Rally2, nee C3 R5." does suggest it is an evolution model but they do seem to prefer the new name. motorsport.com "Citroën C3 Rally2 unveil" clearly not referring to the car in general by the new name, but some kind of new/evolution model. The autoevolution source does perhaps support your argument, if only for the Skoda "Called the Fabia R5 until 2020, the Rally2 Evo won the championship last year..." but then this conflicts with the sourcing on 2020 World Rally Championship-2. The Top Gear article uses a similar convention to the one I suggest we should be using (as with all evolution models), stating of the Skoda "It’s effectively the latest iteration of the punchy Fabia R5". A final point on sources: why should we discount all of the older sources? As the Top Gear example indicates, the name for this series of cars is going to be Skoda Fabia R5 since that is the way they were known first, as with the countless other racing and road cars which are named similarly. However if an alternative option is desired, we could go with a hybrid name similar to Alfa Romeo 158/159 Alfetta. A7V2 (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A7V2:
1. Simply suspect an action intention is not a personal attack, but if that annoys you, I would like to make a sincere apology.
2. Regarding the sources,
  • Article from wrc.com is independent here as the article is about the car model, not the championship. Even the contents are about the championship, it is still independent. It is not a car manufacturer publishes an article about their own product; such official website is operated by a certain team. As for wrc.com, it is WRC Promoter GmbH. In fact, any world championship official site is independent.
  • The Checkered Flag clearly says "a facelifted Citroen C3 Rally2 car". Yes, it builds on C3 R5, but that does not change the fact that it :is named as C3 Rally2 and is widely used to refer to the car as now.
  • Dirtfish clearly mentions "C3 Rally2" serveral times. Of course, it is evolution, so I propose for a move. If it is a revolution model, that :would be the Hyundai/Ford scenario. Also, what criteria makes Dirtfish not a reliable source? I see nothing.
  • motorsport.com adds a word "unveil", so they refer to the car some kind of new/evolution model is WP:OR. The fact is that they use "C3 Rally2" to refer the car.
  • The confliction between the autoevolution source and the 2020 article source is by the vagueness/inconsistency between different sites. In other words, it has not became WP:COMMONNAMES in 2020. However, as more and more sites refer "Rally2" over "R5" since then, the WP:COMMONNAMES has changed.
  • Same for the TG source, mentions "Fabia R5" but referring as "Fabia Rally2 Evo".
3. Why should we discount all of the older sources?
Beacuse it was the WP:COMMONNAMES in the past, but it is definitely not the WP:COMMONNAMES right now. According to the Rally Pyramid regulation, all "R5" names will be out of the history as of 2022, when the new rule is implemented. By then, every R5 model without :a successor will be renamed to Rally2.
4. The alternative option is acceptable but only for Citroën, as Škoda only update its R5 evo version to Rally2 evo, leaving R5 version there. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep my response as brief as I can, as there is little to add as we are going in circles a bit. 0) I have indented your reply one "rung" so as to avoid confusion with HumanBodyPiloter5's comment below, I hope you don't mind. Also in case you didn't know, pings only work if the same edit contains a signature. 1) I probably read too much into it and need to take my own advice! 2)a) I disagree about the WRC website. b) but what is "the car now"? Is it the same car? Or an evolution of the original. c) That's more or less what I said anyway? As to whether it's a reliable source, well there is nothing to indicate any editorial oversight on their news articles (I couldn't find any evidence of this on their website. Their primary purpose appears to be selling products and lessons). But it's not overly important. d) nonsense. e) I've nothing to add. f) Clearly Top Gear are referring to the car as a whole (if that makes sense. The "series" you could say) as the Fabia R5, which has had various iterations. 3) Yes I made my point poorly. What I was getting at is that of course we see sources using the "new" name, but I disagree they are referring to the "car" as a whole (see 2f just above). As I said, I don't see why this would be an exception to the usual convention of keeping the initial name and I don't think we are going to agree, hence my desire for wider participation. 4) Nothing much to add. Definitely seems a good option for the Citroen since we already see other sources using a similar naming scheme. A7V2 (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A7V2: I don't think we need to continue these non-moving-related disputes, so I WP:DROPIT and skip to the final part. We both agree moving Citroën C3 R5 to Citroën C3 R5/Rally2 while creating Hyundai i20 N Rally2, Ford Fiesta Rally2 and Škoda Fabia R5/Rally2 evo, right? Unnamelessness (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Unnamelessness: Yes! A7V2 (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed the change(s) you made above. I think for the Skoda it might be better to put the evo after the R5/Rally2? A7V2 (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Unnamelessness (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanBodyPiloter5: Sources are listed above, and per the documents [6], [7], [8] from the fia.com, the name of "RallyX" is subject to the Rally Pyramid rule. Spaces may be added if there is a proper consensus, but per the sources above, none of them prefer "Rally X". Unnamelessness (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources all appear to use "Rally2" so I don't think that would be an issue. We should not invent our own terminology. A7V2 (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really "inventing our own terminology" to call an article something along the lines of "Hyundai i20 rally car"? I don't really understand why we need separate articles on every slightly different version of a car that gets used for rallying. A single article providing a broader overview of the history of a particular model in rallying, clearly explaining the differences between each different version (ie. how the WRC version is different from the S2000 version is different from the R5 version is different from the Rally3 version) would surely be more helpful for most readers than the current situation, which I personally find quite confusing even as somebody that follows motorsport closely. I have started a topic covering this at WT:MOTORSPORT. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanBodyPiloter5: It totally makes no sense to have both Hyundai i20 N Rally1 (suspect name) and Hyundai i20 N Rally2 into one article. The former car is for the World Rally Championship(-1) (similar to the level status of F1), while the latter one is for the World Rally Championship-2/3 (similar to the level status of F2/3). Unnamelessness (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hyundai_i20_R5&oldid=1207682751"