Talk:Thrupp & Maberly

Proposed changes

In response to the requirement that I must attempt to establish a discussion on the talk page.

1. And Mr Maberly. The name of the business is Thrupp & Maberly. It seems it does not suit your personal taste. You have removed it. I disagree but I'm a bit bored with it myself
2. Thrupp family tree. There are a number of articles about family members made famous, prosperous or better by the business under discussion. They are all members of the one family and this shows their links to the members of the business. Where else should it appear?
3. "Thrupp & Sons were listed separately in 1842 . . ." This is of the nature of a note to the text and not part of the text

These are the reasons for objecting to your changes. Would you please give your reasons for your edits however obvious they may appear to you they seem to discount the thought that went into the preparation of the statements concerned. Eddaido (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eddaido:.

Thank you for not reverting my last post of legitimate edits at the above page. User:Sammy D III did it instead - which was not helpful. When things are taken to Talk they should be left as of the "original" contested edit, not reverted, as no consensus for reverting them had been established, and so long as the edit was not vandalism, and an appropriate edit summary was provided, at the least, very least, Wikipedia's be bold injunction holds until a consensus to the contrary has been established. But thanks for trying, Sammy III. Indeed, we have seen eachother's edits at other vehicle pages and never had the slightest disagreement, if anything appreciation for any help such articles can get.

I sort of take offense at your post. You can throw all the WP links you want, I don't care. I had just stopped a different Eddaido edit war dead (GF editing started immediately after my rollback), noticed this, and thought it would work again. And it did. I turned the clock back and you are both at a talk page instead of doing all that revert crap. I'm proud of what I've done this week. Shame they were both Eddaido, though, I look biased. We can stop anytime. Sammy D III (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(Edit clash)Would you please take special note of my repeated requests ignored by you to stop reverting and discuss your wishes on the article's talk page.

The objections to the edits enumerated above are easy to address:

1. This is not a matter of personal taste - and do not attempt to turn this or anything else into an ad hominem here. There is no established convention at the encyclopedia - instead the convention is the opposite, consistent with the real world outside of Wikipedia - of beginning any article section headings with the word and, let alone any regarding any sort of partnership or collaboration. There is no case of headings such as "Proctor", followed by "and Gamble", no "Johnson", then "and Johnson" for any biographical accounts of the former. (Nor is there any of any styled as "Mr Gamble" and "Mr Johnson, etc.; they are just "Gamble" and "Johnson". The "Mr's" need to go as well: they are just "Thrupp" and "Mayberly", as identified in the company name and article title.)

We are not parsing a company name, we are giving biographies of its principles. Sections are begun with capital letters, and not extraneous pronouns: "Bill of Rights" is just the "Bill of Rights", not "The Bill of Rights". Alternatively, an article or section referring to the 1953 movie The End would not begin simply as "End", as the pronoun in the production's title is essential to its meaning and accurate identification.

I answered above before you even wrote this !

2. The Thrupp & Mayberly article is not a genealogy of their respective family trees; it is an article on a company. To the extent any direct connection can be made to a family member involved in the company that member should be identified and integrated into the body of the article's text; and only germane references of anyone else mentioned. Just because somebody became wealthy or adopted a hobby or different career is insufficient to include them in an article about an (ultimately) automobile coachworks. If someone related to it but not directly involved in that enterprise took some relevant action - like say a daughter of Thrupp married into a rival coachmaking firm, and somehow that marriage impacted Thrupp & Maberly, as indeed actually happened, triggering the merger - it too would earn inclusion on its merits. But simply introducing a family tree at an article about a coachworks is completely unwarranted.

If you would like to create an article on the Thrupp (family), similar to say the Van Rensselaer (family), by all means do. This is not it.

A suitable compromise may be effected by exploiting the "Notes" format already extant at the article - where, in the 1st note introduced, miscellaneous Thrupp offspring who have pages at the encyclopedia are listed. OK, then, go ahead and link that family tree graphic within that note, easily done using standard formatting syntax. That would put it where it would belong, in an existing "aside" so to speak on Thrupp family tree, not in the body of the article.

The note of the family tree sits where I put it right alongside the relevant text. It shows the relationship between the people listed.

3. The paragraph you refer to as "Thrupp & Sons were listed separately in 1842 . . ." originally was just appended and left abandoned at the very end of the final subheading of the article, "West End addresses", yet predates in time the beginning of the parent section it follows, "Locations" (that begins, "For many years this business operated from 269 (renumbered 425) Oxford Street, London, with access from the side street, George Street (now Lumley Street). In 1914 their premises which had included their workshops..."). Which of course makes no chronological sense.

If those are the earliest addresses for the firm, then put them first where they belong (as I moved them). Either do it outright in the body, or, if you please, integrate that content as a note at the very top of the "Locations" section, but by all means do not leave it deposited as a mere spoils pile at the very end of both sections.

The note you want to put in a different order is correct in itself but it is not complete and if placed where you would like it to be gives a misleading impression. Perhaps with your access to historical data you can cover the location field properly and cite your sources.

At the very least, in compromise, move it to the head of the "Locations" section. Any of those three options, so long as it fits chronologically.

Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I hope you are not upset by my responses being interpolated. Do you know about the extra pages where you can make drafts such as you have made below and benefit from the correct formatting? Would you like to try that?

Sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed section heading changes

Perhaps the biographical section headings can be rationalized something along the lines below. Which at the least identifies the parties by their first names, not only appropriate but necessary, and makes some effort to distinguish their roles.

Do note how well the family tree nests under Note 1 when clicked on, as that is where it belongs.

Next, the below is simply a visual example; unfortunately, it is impossible to get the section headings to appear as they would on an actual page. Simply deleting one = on each side of each one below would format them properly in the article space.

Last, note also that I have deleted other images (simply to avoid their distraction here), and made a very few small changes in the body of the text (as in the first line of the George Athelstane Thrupp section heading).

Begin:


Thrupp & Maberly was a British coachbuilding business based in the West End of London, England. Coach-makers to Queen Victoria they operated for more than two centuries until 1967 when they closed while in the ownership of Rootes Group.

Company founders

John Thrupp

The Thrupp family coachbuilding firm was started near Worcester about 1740. The founder's son, Joseph Thrupp (died London 1821), came to London about 1765 and ran a coach making business in George Street, Grosvenor Square. Though his best known coachbuilder descendant was George Athelstane Thrupp (1822-1905) Joseph left a number of notable descendants who were not coach, carriage or harness makers.

Joseph's London business was continued by his nephew Henry East Thrupp (1774-1852), father of coach builder Robert (1813-1871), together with Joseph's much younger fourth son Charles Joseph Thrupp (1791-1872), who left his nine surviving children £30,000. Those nine children included George Athelstane Thrupp (1822-1905) and it was G A Thrupp's sister, Ellen (1829-1914), who married business partner George Henry Maberly (1836-1901) in 1869.

George Mayberly

A decade before, at the beginning of 1858, coachbuilder George Maberly (1797-1883) had merged his own 70 Welbeck Street business with Thrupps becoming their partner. The firm's name was immediately changed to Thrupp & Maberly. Later his son George Henry Maberly (1836-1901) was taken into George Athelstane Thrupp's partnership.

George Athelstane Thrupp

A great grandson of John Thrupp and head of his family's coachbuilding firm George Athelstane Thrupp (1822-1905) became a leader of his craft known to his fellows throughout the world. He was a founder of the Coach-makers' Benevolent Institution and helped form the Institute of British Carriage Manufacturers and the technical schools for coach artisans which were taken over by the Regent Street Polytechnic. He served as Master of the Coachmakers' and Coach Harness Makers' Company in 1883

George Athelstane Thrupp's publications included:

A History of the Art of Coachbuilding published in 1877, originally a series of lectures delivered in 1876 to the Society of Arts;

Coach Trimming with William Farr in 1888 and

he edited William Simpson's Hand Book for Coach Painters also published in 1888.

His son George Herbert Thrupp (1859-1925) joined Thrupp & Maberly but his sister's son, Gerald Clare Maberly (1871-1961), became a barrister.

References

I trust you will find this exercise useful not merely on its merits but in resolving any residual issues not already fully addressed in my response to your original post above. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)