Talk:Extreme E

Intellectual infringement pending
Because I would rather this not be taken to WP:AN3, maybe it would be best for all sides to at least discuss this on the talk page before this edit war gets out of hand. Paging and  as those also involved.

I see no reason to include the attempted legal action by Extreme International. The current sources cited are all trademark sites with opposition proceedings that has not gone anywhere since. It has been over a year since the oppositions were raised and there has been no media coverage from reliable sources (or anywhere, really) whatsoever. If the proceedings do result in some sort of action in the future, then there might be some justification. Until then, however, speculating on a possible result is considered a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Zappa⚡Matic 22:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Opposition to trademark applications seem to be fairly common (one source says "More often than not trademark owners raise an objection because the new trademark is identical or confusingly similar to their own rights."). Until there is either significant media coverage or a result that would force Extreme E to change their name, I don't see any benefit from including this in the article.Wild8oar (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, for your views, comments and thoughts here, I understand and respect these, but as it stands Formula E have no registered IP and marks at all and have pending court cases and there are many commercial partners that they are bringing in, who are putting in significant time and more importantly investment that are not being informed or aware of these significant pending issue. My view in light of this is that this information should be included and made public knowledge. As a compromise here and following wiki guidelines re references I suggest we wait till there is press in the public domain around this and as soon as there is we list these facts CablesatelliteTVguru (talk) 06:40, 21September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the other two editors that this content does not warrant inclusion at this time, if ever. First, the fact that Extreme E has no registered IP at all is patently false. A cursory search of publicly available databases shows that Extreme E have registered trademarks both inside and outside the EU. The sources that I saw cited show only two of their dozens of filings have an opposition filed against them.  Second, the characterization of these issues as significant is a bit of a stretch. There are a variety of outcomes (under US law, which I am familiar with) that are possible, such as simply licensing from the company opposing the mark, forfeiting the mark, changing the mark, overcoming the opposition, etc. Not only that, but to include them on the wiki article would be wading into an area that is against a core policy of no original research see: WP:PRIMARY.  Finally, wikipedia is not the proper platform to make the public aware of perceived injustices or fraud on the part of the organization.  Not only is it against WP:NPOV, but it is the responsibility of those investing their time and resources to conduct proper due-diligence before making a commitment.  In all likelihood, they are privy to a lot of confidential details and contracts that would likely outweigh anything that could be gleaned here. IPBilly (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Guess we're back with this conversation again. While we now have some sort of coverage of this, guess the debate now falls to the backstory behind Ali Russell and Alistair Gosling and whether it should be concluded. I honestly do not have any opinion either way on this case, but it's definitely better to once again figure something out here before this has to be taken to a noticeboard. Zappa⚡Matic 03:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Since we have a reference now, I don't mind a short mention as long as it stays true to what the article says. However, it does annoy me quite a bit that CablesatelliteTVguru is not contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive way, but (ab-)uses it to publicize his/his employer's quarrels with Extreme E. This is clearly what Wikipedia is not, violating e.g. WP:ADVOCACY or WP:SOAP. Wild8oar (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It is more than a week since that SportCal article has been published and no other media outlet has even reacted on it. It seems clear that the story so far has no relevance. I would say there are two separate issues to deal with: 1. The opposition to the trademark: this seems to be a fact as it can be found in the IP registration database. It can still be argued that this is a very common occurrence and at this point just WP:CRYSTAL to claim that it will ever be relevant. 2. The allegations by Mr Gosling: they are currently just allegations (true or not we cannot decide). But unless there are significant further developments or this becomes an actual topic in a wider range of media, it would be WP:ADVOCACY to include it in Wikipedia. As a compromise, I suggest to include a sentence about the trademark opposition, but leave out the allegations by Mr Goslin. Wild8oar (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage in this edit war any further than I already have. The single sentence noting the trademark opposition is sourced, and given the series infant status possibly relevant. The allegations by Goslin do seem to verge on WP:ADVOCACY, but also lend a little context to the trademark suit. It appears that Wild8oar has made several good-faith attempts to include the content as well as improve the wording. CablesatelliteTVguru continues to ignore these good-faith efforts and paste in the same version of what was originally written without engaging in any further discussion and before reaching a consensus. IPBilly (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * St Helena with Extreme E livery (2020).jpg

Name change
For 2025 we shouldn't make a new page for Extreme H, we should change this page's name to Extreme H and mention that it was formerly Extreme E. 92.52.232.134 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)