Talk:Avonside Locomotive Works

Untitled
I am rather unhappy with this page, but I'm new to Wikipedia, so don't want to jump in by editing the page straight away.

Let me instead start by raising two points.

Firstly, I am not convinced that "Avonside Locomotive Works" was ever an official title of "The Avonside Engine Company"; actually, I am convinced that it never was. As evidence I can mention the worksplate on Elidir (2071) which I photographed at Shildon in August 2006. This clearly reads "The Avonside Engine Company". I therefore feel that this article if falsely titled, and the material in it should be included, if at all, in the article entitled "Avonside Engine Company".

As for the content, I was amazed by the inclusion of GWR 1103 at Danygraig, Swansea Docks, under "Surviving Fishponds Built Avonside Locomotives". If this were true, it would be a sensation, but neither of the two authoritative sources on preserved locomotives in Britain, namely the EL series of Industrial Railway Society books (currently No. 14EL) and the web-site uklocos.com mention this loco at all. A quick google search for "Avonside 1103" revealed a page at PhilT.org.uk which showed a photo of 1103 (Avonside 1989/1926), previously "Picture of the Month" for July/August 2007. It is clear to me that the author of this Wikipedia page has simply misinterpreted this photo as meaning that 1103 is still at Danygraig, whereas a short check would have proved this to be totally unfounded.

The rest of the content is of moderate quality, and could well be improved. The reference to "The 0-4-0 gauge" is suspicious, and should be corrected immediately.

Any comments welcome.

Umberslade (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All good points and worthwhile clarifications. Please note the guidelines about being positive Talk_page_guidelines, and feel free to merge with Avonside Engine Company should it clarify the title/content. Regards Robinboulby (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
There has been a proposed merge banner on Avonside Locomotive Works since March 2012. It is suggested that this should be merged with Avonside Locomotive Works as the two articles cover closely related topics. Does anyone have thoughts on this?&mdash; Rod talk 20:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Think you meant to type Avonside Engine Company there Rod, not this article. I don't have a strong opinion on this proposal, but it seems a sensible merger. Rwendland (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting my error.&mdash; Rod talk 18:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose They're two commercially separate companies, on two different sites.  They share a similar name, a (different) location in Bristol and some sequential history - but they don't overlap. They could be merged, but it would have to be done carefully to make the two phases of their history very clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If everyone thinks the two separate articles are appropriate then we can remove the merge banner but, although it has been in place for over three years, there doesn't seem to have been any previous discussion of it.&mdash; Rod talk 18:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy to leave both articles. But I'm not sure this is a clear case of two commercially separate companies obviously needing 2 articles. Avonside Engine Company article says "Walker was forced to liquidate the old company and form a new company with the same name to carry on the same business at the same address." moving to Fishponds many years later. I think I'm right in saying there are many WP articles covering multiple legal companies that cover an obvious in-practice continuation. So I suspect there is a valid argument for one article.  But in this case I don't think it that worthwhile merging. Rwendland (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I have removed both merge banners.&mdash; Rod talk 18:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Avonside Engine Company
Shouldn't a link to Avonside Engine Company be provided in this article? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added this under the header "See also". --NearEMPTiness (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Avonside Locomotive Works. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005090622/http://www.avonvalleyrailway.org/gallery/rollingstock.html to http://www.avonvalleyrailway.org/gallery/rollingstock.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Merger or Separate Article Thoughts?
I came to this article about to link MGWR Class P to their make. They I discovered Avonside Engine Company. (I think through the 'See also' and decided to confirm if it was motor car engine manufacturer or something). Luckily another source specifically mentions Avonside Engine Company for the Class P so my link target is here. However I would wish either this article is merged to Avonside Engine Company or about2 templates are used at the start to avoid confusion between the articles. One bit of concern is both articles or their links seem to claim the build of 34 PORTBURY	 (if I am not mistaken ... and I may be Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)). I feel something needs to be done.  I cannot be sure what ... doing nothing is not right, merging may not be right and about2 may not be right if their is a truly separate entity.  I merely feel there is a problem ... I don't have the right knowledge and references as to which may to fix it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I've got my head around the relationship of the articles. I've used an about2 on this article to reduce confusion with Avonside Engine Company ... and use a see template on that own on the move to fishponds to refer back to this one. It may well be the articles should be merged ... but hopefully this helps reduce the confusion for the casual reader like me. The result isn't perfection. Feel free to improve.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)