This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
I was surprised to see Urbanoc declare in the edit summary accompanying their total revert of the 'History' section that I'd only minutes earlier added, that this article is focused on Alpine's involvement in Gormula [sic] One, not the Enstone team. I see one big problem with that: the article title - "Apine F1 Team" - implies that the article is focused on the team, and not only Alpine's involvement with F1. Should we rename the article to something like "Alpine in F1", or should we develop an article about the team per the current title? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article covers the Alpine team, not the vaguely-defined "Team Enstone" one. That was decided in WT:F1 when we agreed to cover constructor and team under the same article, as both terms are used almost interchangeably these days. Of course, you can re-open the debate and bring your concerns there if you disagree, better to keep things consistent. I wouldn't oppose to rename the article as Alpine in Formula One, but I don't know if there's a consensus for that. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Urbanoc, but when we agreed to cover constructor and team under the same article isn't the same as this article is focused on Alpine's involvement in Gormula [sic] One, not the Enstone team. In fact the latter contradicts the former, or are you saying that the Enstone team will lose all of its prior history on the day it is renamed to "Alpine F1", and that it will cease to be the Enstone team? And do you have a link to that consensus you mentioned please ? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a link, that was ages ago :). But you can ask Tvx1 if remembers in which archive that is, I recall he was involved in that discussion. You can also ask DH85868993 or Bretonbanquet as they are well-informed on WikiProject Formula One matters and were around at the time. But you can see that's the format we use in the rest of the articles. In any case, your proposed changes have Project-wide implications, so it's better if you raise your concerns at WT:F1 and not with me. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Urbanoc, I'm not sure what you think my "proposed changes" are, I don't recall proposing any changes. All I did was add a short paragraph on the team's history, similar to what we see in other team articles. So what are you imagining the "Project-wide implications" of that are? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article's scope is Alpine participation in F1. It is appropriate to add a paragraph briefing explaining the previous constructors that the "Enstone" team has run with, but it should be made clear the other constructors they run have main articles elsewhere and that details from these periods are covered in any level of detail elsewhere. SSSB (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What SSSB says. DeFacto, you're trying this article differently than the other "Team Enstone" ones by focusing the article on... well, "Team Enstone". The only that goes into that much detail detail on the "Team Enstone" saga is Lotus F1, but in that case Lotus was nothing more than a sponsor unrelated to the team, so I don't think there're real equivalencies there... Not clear-cut, but this article has more in common to Mercedes-Benz in Formula One, Alfa Romeo in Formula One, and so on. All the coverage on "Team Enstone" should be brief and keep under the "Origins" section, so has to maintain consistency with the other articles. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Urbanoc, not at all, all I did was add a short history paragraph. There is also room for another section covering Alpine's journey to this point. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that's not the case, you shouldn't have problems to trim your content and keep it under the "Origins" section, to keep consistency with the rest of the articles. Am I right? --Urbanoc (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Urbanoc, ah, so you're troubled by my choice of section title for a 'history' section. Fair enough, I don't mind including 'Team history' as a sub-section of the 'Origins' section. I'm not sure my short paragraph should be trimmed much though, I think it's already down to the bare-bones as it is. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason for a separate section/sub-section for the sake of it. We already cover "Team Enstone" in a lot of articles. What I'm saying is to keep just an "Origins" section as all the other "Team Enstone" have and omit details, we don't need a summary of "Team Enstone up until now", as this article is not about "Team Enstone" . --Urbanoc (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SSSB, I agree, and you'll see that in my brief paragraph I included links to the main articles covering each of the team's eras under its previous names. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Urbanoc: I think that @DeFacto: addition to the history section was fine and didn't go into unnecessary detail at all. It gives a good idea of the team that Alpine (constructor, that's who it's a different article, because it's a different constructor and therefore treated separately by FIA) inherits. SSSB (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SSSB, I completely disagree, as I think it's clearly inconsistent and gives to much prominence to the "Team Enstone" aspect compared to similar articles. However, as you support DeFacto's position against mine (sorry for misunderstanding that...) and no-one else is into the discussion, I'd say that there's a consensus for the inclusion, at least at this point. So, I've reverted myself, although I may challenge it in the future... --Urbanoc (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Urbanoc, fair play. I was going to add sources too yesterday, but with the discussion didn't get the chance. I'll try and add then later. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody know why Renault/Alpine are based in GBR (Enstone, Oxfordshire, England, UK) as apposed to somewhere in France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.136.141 (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The team traces its history back to Toleman, so I assume that Renault simply never bothered to move the team when they aqquired it from Bennetton in '01. SSSB (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The team is a British company that has been based in Oxfordshire, UK, since it began competing in F1 in the early 1980s. Most of its workforce are British, and many have worked for the team, or one of the several other F1 teams based in the same area, for decades. The team had been successful in building F1 championship-winning cars before they started badging their cars as Renault, and I guess Renault wanted to capitalise on that experience and the local labour pool, or why would they have invested in the team in the first place? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
