Talk:Victoria County History
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hope nobody minds that I've tidied up this discussion page a little. --Alex Craven (talk)04:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the name of this article ought to be the full "Victoria History of the Counties of England" (which is the actual name of the series), with "Victoria County History" (the abbreviated form), redirecting to it. Is there any good reason to keep it as it is? (the 'wrong' way round).--John Maynard Friedman (talk)22:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image:VCH counties.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is noexplanation or rationale as to why its use inthis Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent withfair use.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale. Using one of the templates atWikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:VCH shield.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is noexplanation or rationale as to why its use inthis Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent withfair use.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale. Using one of the templates atWikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the list of counties: new work has just begun in Nottinghamshire, for instance, whilst work continues in Wiltshire. --Alex Craven (talk)04:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The VCH for Berkshire was published in 4 volumes as stated on this page - but the last volume was published in the late 1920s - not 1972 as given here.
In 1972 a fifth volume comprising an index to the orignal 4 volume work was added. So the entry should either bear the date of the fourth volume to be published or otherwise indicate that there are 5 vols or 4 vols + index.Newburychap09:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the section "Counties in Progress", Cheshire is said to have had 6 volumes published. However this is inaccurate, though it is easy to see how the inaccuracy has arisen. The volume numbers that have been published so far are: I (isbn: 0197227619), II (isbn: 019722749X) , III (isbn: 0197227546), V(i) (isbn: 1904356001), and V(ii) (isbn: 1904356036). The absence of volume IV and the presence of the two books that together form parts (i) and (ii) of volume V is the source of confusion: it confused me when I was obtaining my own copies of the books. Can some means of correcting it be worked out? I'm not sure how best to do this, and so comments from others might be a good idea. (It also means that the poster given in the image is also slightly misleading, though perhaps less so, as it suggests a straight run of volume I to volume IV has been published, which isn't the case.) DDStretch (talk)10:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although Staffordshire VCH have published a volume XX, the numbering of the volumes is not consecutive, and so only 13 actual volumes have so far been published, most recently in 2008. --Alex Craven (talk)05:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article wrongly stated that work on Wiltshire was complete, and that there were no volumes 1 and 2. Work continues on Wiltshire, and volume 18 will be published in 2010. --Alex Craven (talk)05:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
Could someone come up with a boilerplate "cite book" that we can munge as needed. Should we cite the book or cite the web site? The website suggests a citation like
which is not a typical WP house style. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk)13:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to theEngland's Past for Everyone page. --Alex Craven (talk)04:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
