![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 July 2010. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
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)
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)
Done
Aptery
gial
23:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
The team is on the new entry list as US F1 Team. - mspete93 [talk] 18:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
What happend to the picture of the US F1 Team logo. ( Wiki id2 ( talk) 11:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC))
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.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
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)
... 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 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)
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)
Now that we know that the team definitely will not be competing this year, should it retain [[Category:Formula One entrants]]? 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)
Shouldn't this article mention the Toasters somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.21 ( talk) 11:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 July 2010. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
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)
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)
Done
Aptery
gial
23:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
The team is on the new entry list as US F1 Team. - mspete93 [talk] 18:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
What happend to the picture of the US F1 Team logo. ( Wiki id2 ( talk) 11:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC))
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.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
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)
... 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 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)
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)
Now that we know that the team definitely will not be competing this year, should it retain [[Category:Formula One entrants]]? 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)
Shouldn't this article mention the Toasters somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.21 ( talk) 11:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)