Talk:Holloway Brothers (London)

Use of LTC Rolt's company history
I have a copy of LTC Rolt's 'Holloways of Millbank, The First Seventy-Five Years' published for the company in 1958. As the book is not widely available, L. T. C. Rolt is a highly respected author, and the material is mostly historical and non-contentious, I thought it helpful to summarise some of its content, though in an entirely different form from the original. This makes for a fairly long article, in particular because I have chosen to list many of the projects referred to in the book. I think that is justified in this case because most of them are notable in their own right, eg having their own Wikipedia articles, because of their scale, or statutory listing. In addition, many of the projects are listed elsewhere only under the name of the architect or consulting engineer, sometimes described as being built by them. That is misleading - the great bulk of those engaged in the task will have been employed by Holloways, especially as little use was made of sub-contractors during most of that period. AJHingston (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Caxton House/Hall?
Is the Caxton House and Caxton Hall the same? The Anglo-German Friendship Committee has Caxton House as its address in 1911, but was founded in Caxton Hall in 1905 according to this article http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0A10FF3F5C1A728DDDAB0894DA415B858CF1D3. If so, then the date 1908 in this wikiarticle is incorrect. --Soman (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * London building names can be confusing. Caxton Hall and Caxton House are different buildings. Caxton Hall is in Caxton Street SW1 and is the former Westminster city hall, built in 1878. I see from my copy of the London Encyclopedia that there is a plinth nearby saying that Caxton Hall was used a lot by the Womens' Suffrage movement for meetings, which would be at around the same time as the foundation of the Anglo-German Friendship Committee, so that fits. Caxton House is in Great Tothill Street SW1, but the building today is obviously not the one built in 1908. It is very likely, though that it was redeveloped on the same site and kept the name. It is an odd coincidence that the committee should have been founded in one building and had its offices in another with a similar name; it may be that or there may have been a mistranscription at some stage of the office address - it would be necessary to check the source for the office address or find some corroboration to be sure. --AJHingston (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)