Talk:Robert C. Sprague

Copy editing and section titles
Reworked some of the section headings, and sentence structures. Bdcousineau (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-writing and organizing, too. Bdcousineau (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Robert C. Sprague. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140106182358/http://www.mcla.edu/mcla_data/Library/Archive/Sprague/Vol22_No07.pdf to http://www.mcla.edu/mcla_data/Library/Archive/Sprague/Vol22_No07.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140106182026/http://www.mcla.edu/mcla_data/Library/Archive/Sprague/Vol20_No07.pdf to http://www.mcla.edu/mcla_data/Library/Archive/Sprague/Vol20_No07.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140106182337/http://www.mcla.edu/mcla_data/Library/Archive/Sprague/Vol19_No03.pdf to http://www.mcla.edu/mcla_data/Library/Archive/Sprague/Vol19_No03.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Manufacturer Code 2
Sprague Electric was an early member of the Institute of Radio Engineers, and was assigned manufacturer code number "2" (I don't know who was assigned to "1"). Proud of this heritage, they labeled many components with just a "2" in a circle instead of (when label space was scarce) or in addition to the words "Sprague Electric" on manufactured components. Reify-tech (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Profitability
You changed the meaning of this sentence: "Sprague Electric wasn't profitable" -> "Sprague Electric was not very profitable". Was that your intent? I can't check the source, which is in a proprietary format. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just eliminating a MOS:CONTRACTION, and did not intend to change the meaning. I too couldn't access the ref, so I have rewritten the sentence once more. Reify-tech (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

father Frank J. Sprague Jr - NOT Jr
The lede currently starts by referencing the father as "Frank J. Sprague Jr". But the relevant WP article and disambig page provide no support for "Jr" modifier to the name, and a quick google search seems to turn up only content apparently derived from this article. Researching the history of this article, this bogus "Jr" looks to have been included since the original 3-line stub of March 2013. An innocent mistake? Since it is unsourced at this point, perhaps I will make so bold as to remove it from the lede, until someone has a credible source.-71.174.175.150 (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "son of Frank J. Sprague Jr and Harriet Sprague"

Split the article?
Although Robert C. Sprague had a major influence on the company he founded, would it be better to split the narrative of the company from his biography? Currently, Sprague Electric just points to a short article on Vishay Intertechnology, which barely even mentions the Sprague company. There is plenty of interesting historical material to warrant a stand-alone article about the company, Also, a split would free up space for more coverage of Robert C. Sprague as a notable person, which is largely missing from the current article, dominated by company coverage.

As another related matter, I have been cleaning up the rather adulatory, breathless coverage of Sprague and his company, but the article still needs a lot more work. With the 2015 publication of a book about Sprague Electric (which I added to "Further reading"), there is more sourcing for references in addition to the primary sources. Comments? Reify-tech (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think there should be separate articles about Sprague the person and Sprague the company. I think they are each interesting and worthy subjects. My only concern is that there is inevitably substantial overlap between them, and each should contain sizeable summary material about the other -- much more than bare cross-linkages! And there will always be a grey zone about deciding what contents properly belong in which article - or both. I have not studied how this plays out in other similar cases in WP, and what the best approaches are.


 * I came to this article just yesterday after watching the recent PBS American Experience broadcast about the father and the Boston subway system, based on a book about the topic. I was previously familiar with the company, and wanted to know the connection with the father. I was immediately struck by the oddity of there seeming to be no stand-alone article about the company, but somewhat mollified by there being so much content hidden in this bio article.


 * Until this article splits, please redirect Sprague Electric to this article, not Vishay. Or else -- Vishay article should have a prominent top-note link to this article for Sprague Electric history? (I just adjusted the See also section of Vishay article.)


 * Let's get some better photos of these caps, that I grew up building circuits with -- the individual components should be bigger, more visible.-71.174.175.150 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's split it. I don't think there should be much overlap at all if it's done right. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)