Talk:US F1 Team

USF1
Lucky are those who are granted the freedom to make such an entry in wikipedia well before USF1 has actually joined F1. Tried to adapt this seed of a future article into the German wikipedia and it was deleted within hours, for those dumbeffed bsdrds are still as they've been 80 years ago.Limbonic (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This sort of attitude has no place on Wikipedia. The359 (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See this, if you're interested. Aptery  gial  11:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I obviously didn't read the last part of that comment. Absolutely no place for sentiments like that here. Aptery  gial  11:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While the comment was out of line, it shows the degree of hostility existing between the Deletionists (all but a viable Wikipedian religion), and those who are acting in good faith. Good faith means nothing to them, and nothing is ever done about it. --Chr.K. (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Move?

 * USF1 (Formula One) → USGPE — USF1 changes name Cybervoron (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The question here, I think, is whether the article should be USGPE or US Grand Prix Engineering. Again, I'd prefer to wait for something official. The359 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the question, then the move request is premature. Even after the official name is decided, we don't automatically move the article. We only move the article when there's evidence that the new name is now widely used. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong but this is a redundant discussion as someone has already moved the article to 'US Grand Prix Engineering' or are we discussing a move back?-- Paste Let’s have a chat. 19:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone moved it once before, I moved it back. It shouldn't have been moved yet this time, but as usual, people got jumpity. The359 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose It can't possibly start out life at USGPE; MOS:ABBR requires that "Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is ... widely known and used in that form (e.g., NASA and radar)". This does not apply in this case. It does seem that reliable sources are being cagey in reporting the name change, using weasel words like "reportedly"; we can afford to wait. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why not go whole hog and call the page United States Grand Prix Engineering???--Amedeo Felix (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Provide an unequivocal reliable source and I will support such a move. I was surprised to be unable to find one easily; as I said in my comment above, all the reliable sources I saw used weasel words such as "reportedly" which means they are not certain that the name has actually changed and are thus unsuitable to support a name change of the article. I'm not sure how reliable the source provided by the proposer is; I read that website and I'm not convinced of their editorial standards at all; frequently articles are poor summaries or translations of press releases or news agency releases. It might well be that a website employee read "Bernie Ecclestone has asked" and given Bernmie's position in F1 mentally translated it to "it's a done deal; report it as fact" without supporting evidence.  --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Last week (Friday, 10th April) Autosport still used "USF1" name (actually this is already a reference link in the article, related to the possible Cosworth deal, but not to naming) and in an interview, Peter Windsor was asked about "wild reports suggesting a name change". Peter Windsor's answer is not completely clear but he said that a new name is due to be announced soon. Really a new name or just officially announcing "USGPE" name? Peter Windsor also mentions that several domains had been registered beforehand. --Timppis (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ken Anderson has cleared up the name situation. He said, once the team is in F1, it will be called Team USF1. Autosport: Q & A with USF1's Ken Anderson. Timppis (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I came here to mention that, we should move it back to USF1 (Formula One). Eightball (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I sort of agree that the page should be moved, but given that the team hasn't even got confirmed entry to F1, it wouldn't do any harm to wait until something real happens. There's actually a decent chance that nothing will happen and this article may be deleted.Spute (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But Wikipedia aside, it is almost certain that they will get an entry. Bernie and Max (not to mention the team leaders themselves) made it sound like a foregone conclusion. Eightball (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

US English?
Let's get this sorted out early. This would seem to be as clear a case as we are likely to see to make an exception to WP:F1's rule of UK English (US team, based in the US, run by US people – and an Australian – called US Grand Prix Engineering). Does anyone have any convincing arguments to the contrary before the article starts getting too big to make easy changes possible? Aptery gial  06:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC) ✅ Aptery  gial  23:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all, seems very sensible.-- Paste Let’s have a chat. 16:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Name change (again)
This needs to be moved to Team US F1 as this is what they are called on the official 2010 entry list. Petera93 (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another name change
The team is on the new entry list as US F1 Team. - mspete93   [talk]  18:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice if the FIA could announce this stuff intermittently instead of always waiting forever and refreshing the entry list. F1.com, USF1.com and various media outlets have been referring to the team as US F1 Team for over a month. Eightball (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

US F1 Picture
What happend to the picture of the US F1 Team logo. (Wiki id2 (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Again? Hrm. Oh, removed at this diff after a deletion. Hooray. ...Given the internet-friendly attitude of the team it might honestly be easier just ask for permissions on that "beta version" generic logo? Just a thought. At least there's always a solution of some sort. I'm sure there are GFDL files out there.  ....Good call on the CSD mention, btw. I was considering putting that in at the same time but was worried about the section dragging on... also figured it'd come up in a development section that will presumably be created soon. It's entirely appropriate info, of course. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The logo needs a fair use rationale, then it can be used. The359  ( Talk ) 18:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's was missing? Oy, always a depressing (but entirely proper) reason for a delete. That does mean we have to exhaust any free alternatives, but might argue that it's "just text" which is permissible. Hmm. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

USGPE
Please CHANGE the name of team as there is NO US F1 team. It is illegal by Formula One regulations to use "Formula One" name in the name http://www.singaporegp.org/constructors/usf1-usgpe

Official Web Site for US F1 Team: USGPE - United States Grand Prix Engineering     http://www.usgpe.com

There will be no USF1 in Formula 1 racing this year – or any year for that matter. A full year before the new American team was set to take to the track in 2010, they have been shot down by the very series they planned to compete in. But before you get too upset and think this is a case of Anti-American bias or something, know that it is just the name that the sanctioning body was objecting to.

Bernie Ecclestone and Formula One Management (FOM) weren't overly fond of the use of "F1" in the team's initially stated name. So it's out with USF1 and in with USGPE, which stands for US Grand Prix Engineering. We wouldn't be surprised to hear that Pontiac is now threatening a lawsuit, or perhaps sponsorship.

Just for clarification, Formula 1 has allowed "F1" in a team's name, but only if the word "Team" is also used. The lone exception is Williams, which officially goes by WilliamsF1. In related news, Force India was asked to revise their logo because "FI" looks too much like "F1". The team will now use a lowercase "i" in the logo to avoid confusion with the series. Got all that? So USF1 is now USGPE and Force India is now using "Fi" instead of "FI"

The NEW name of US Team is USGPE (United States Grand Prix Engineering).

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/06/ecclestone-requests-usf1-name-change-us-grand-prix-engineerin United States Grand Prix Engineering (USGPE) is an American motor racing team that is currently scheduled to compete in the 2010 Formula One season.

USGPE was formed by Haas CNC Racing technical director Ken Anderson and journalist Peter Windsor.

The name of the team was previously Team USA F1, but Bernie Ecclestone, president and CEO of Formula One Management and Formula One Administration, objected to the use of "F1" as he claims the rights to the term. USF1 has been asked to change its name. So in an effort to cooperate and make their entrance into Formula One go as smooth as possible USF1 have decided to change their name to USGPE. United States Grand Prix Engineering. http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/193/team_profile.html

http://www.formula1.com/gallery/other/2010/430.html http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/143659/1/ecclestone_forces_usf1_to_change_name_to_usgpe.html

http://www.f1ap.com/?p=6

http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=45228

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns21223.htm

The reason behind that was a command from Ecclestone to re-name the squad US Grand Prix Engineering (or USGPE, as USGP is already owned by Indianapolis Motor Speedway supremo Tony George) after the Formula One Management chief executive objected to the abbreviation 'F1' in its title – a term he claims to own.

'With the sport suffering as a result of the global financial crisis, and only nine teams currently confirmed for the season-opener, to many this latest move might appear somewhat petty,' remarks Pitpass. 'Race fans in the United States already have plenty to feel aggrieved about. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/134626-ecclestone-forces-usf1-to-change-name-to-usgpe 'Other than the fact that F1 is not visiting North America this year for the first time since 1958, many US race fans will remember the shambles that was the 2005 United States Grand Prix, when only six cars took part.'

Ecclestone played an instrumental part in helping Windsor and Anderson to get F1's newest arrival off the ground, allowing USGPE to use the official 2008 season film for promotional purposes to try to attract potential sponsors and investors.

In 2007, Formula One Licensing tried and failed to be granted exclusive control over the term 'F1', with the UK Trademark Registry deeming the abbreviation to be a generic one and as such 'not registrable as a trademark'. That said, Ecclestone's company continues to apply TM signs – even though the only official trademark that has been agreed to is the 'FIA Formula One World Championship' – and has in the past endeavoured to gain sole rights over the term 'grand prix', again to no end.

Renault, Toyota and Force India all employ 'F1' in their official names, but FOM is understood to accept this as in each case the term is followed by the word 'Team', whilst Williams Grand Prix Engineering goes under the trading name of WilliamsF1. Force India has also been told by Ecclestone's company to change its official logo ahead of the start of the 2009 campaign due to what FOM feels is an overly close resemblance between 'F1' and the Silverstone-based squad's 'FI' logo.

Meanwhile, Windsor and Anderson's new transatlantic venture has received a vote of confidence from recently-promoted McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh, who argues that the initiative could be just the boost that has been needed to re-establish the sport the other side of the Pond, following the aforementioned 2005 fiasco and subsequent disappearance from the schedule of both the American and Canadian fixtures.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/formula-1-news/207753/usf1-asked-to-change-name
 * Except all of this is either untrue or out of date. The team's name is US F1 Team, the FIA has accepted the use of the term US F1 Team since they were accepted into the 2010 Formula One season.  USGPE was only used when the team had not yet been granted an entry.  As for the rest of this copying and pasting, I'm not sure what it has to do with anything else here.  The359  ( Talk ) 06:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

An Silent Retrofit on 21 January
There was a very large amount of work done on the article today, and though not disruptive in any way I do have to highly discourage anything like this without some mention on the talk page first. The size is larger, which is good, and references up, also being good, but while slicing and rearranging things is BOLD bold in small quantities it does most certainly need edit summaries. This is true of anyone editing, naturally regardless of experience. I'm not going to revert any of it (wow, that would be cruel)... though since the old style and format had been left still for quite some time that defaults to a consensus on content desired and anything entirely removed I'll replace. From there it would be pending discussion on an appropriate removal of that text and references combined with it.

Some of the work looks like padding or content not particularly encyclopedic (at least not at this time) so I'll look through it. First thing I see is something involving "rumor", and an entirely unnecessary trivia comment. That will need fixing (well, honestly, likely removal for now). The new organization structure is good, so without objection here on I'll assume that's likely fine to keep as-is for some time. The general good faith and time put in for improvements is, of course, welcomed, and this is a step up! ...Just please use edit summaries when making large numbers of edits and/or changing large sections and/or adding or removing content. As more editors come in it continues to become more important for others to see what the progression on things has been. Actually, just always use them period, hah. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already done some pruning to remove the speculation and to eliminate the entire controversy section, integrating it into where it belongs. The359  ( Talk ) 21:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, I was doing the same and walked into an edit conflict with almost the exact same edit summary: removes self-stated rumors per WP:CRYSTAL; removes related trivia; removes unsourced and superfluous factoid through new sections is what I had in the field. I have no objections to what has been shuffled backwards but might as well double-doublecheck if any content has fallen through the cracks in the last few days with edits. Many thanks. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Accidentally large copyedit on 5 February
... Erm, having looked at the diff on my change, I had no idea I shuffled around that much, so I apologize. I will importantly note that no references or referenced material was removed with 22 references before and after and the size increase was only 800 bytes. Really, the goal was all for readability and proper grouping of topics. The one longer paragraph removed was all placed elsewhere to match topics. I also changed things that have already happened to past tense. Naturally, please post any worries here and go ahead and change anything odd-looking or questionable/open to interpretation/whatever. I'm starting to feel bad about all that's different, but since no referenced/cited material has been removed I hope no one feels stomped on. Also, please post something on my talk page for any meta-level concerns. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The likelihood (or otherwise) of US F1 racing in 2010
The main topic of conversation around US F1 right now appears to be the fact that a lot of newsworthy people like Bernie Ecclestone have said that they think it unlikely that they'll be racing this year. Is the fact that so many magazines, newspapers and websites are reporting such fears relevant to this page? I was going to add some information, but I don't want to be accused of acting in bad faith or having any sort of axe to grind against the team...217.43.85.173 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a paragraph, but there are still no "official" reports, so the wording has to be phrased in such a way to make it clear that it's speculation, albeit widely reported speculation.-- Midgrid  (talk)  11:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed attack comment by 81.174.171.21 - Esw01407 (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The weight of things the past few weeks regarding Bernie or misc rumors abound (possibly started by him) is pretty much deafening, but it's still nothing "real" or objectively substantiated. We know there are money problems, that being the pinning of and common point between all of the new information and that's exactly what we're touching on. Some typical F1 sites haven't said a word about USF1 or Campos in weeks, figuring its not news unless a) they show a car, or b) they officially shut down... From our encyclopedic standpoint, we should be and indeed are doing the same. In the next day or two we assume there will be "an answer", and if it's shutting down we can look back at what speculation was proven as fact and consider its importance. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Rendered Moot
It would seem this is settled. There's been a bit of a flurry on edits to adjust the article for this. I mostly wanted to apologize to the two editors that had added proper and very necessary sources at the right time... my edits were EC'd first, but I made sure manually that what was added wasn't removed. I did add a refname to one and used it to back up another statement. The question marks left will fill in shortly, I'd assume. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Entrants or not?
Now that we know that the team definitely will not be competing this year, should it retain ? It's not actually going to enter a race, but it had an entry for the season.-- Midgrid  (talk)  21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should be removed and so should the f1 entry cat as well. These guys are dreamer a bit like Stefan GP and we should down grade this article accordantly. Bjmullan (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stefan never had an entry, though, whereas USF1 did. It depends whether one defines "entrant" as a team that actually took part in a race, or merely possessed an entry but didn't use it.--  Midgrid  (talk)  14:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many teams that have had entries that never actually raced, often through lack of qualification or failing the crash tests. (Lola, Life, First being three examples) and those are allocated that status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.207.200 (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe they should retain their status as F1 entrants: their entry to the 2010 championship was accepted by the FIA and they appeared on the official entry list. DH85868993 (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Toasters
Shouldn't this article mention the Toasters somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.21 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)