Talk:Pevsner Architectural Guides

Cork Guide
Is this actually out? It was due 6/3 and appears to be orderable on line, but Waterstones doesn't have it and the Yale Pevsner page still says “due 2020”? KJP1 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This Yale page says it was published on 10 March. GrindtXX (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - Yes indeed, they just need to update this page, . I rang Yale and they confirmed it is out, and my copy should arrive tomorrow. As it was originally due out in 2016, I shouldn't moan about a few days! KJP1 (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

End of series?
I notice a passing comment in the Ancient Monuments Society newsletter, Autumn 2020, that the series (England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland) "creeps close to final completion with the concluding revisions planned to climax in 2023. Then it will stop and that's it, no more revised hardback editions ever." If that's the plan, it would be worth a mention here, but I can't immediately confirm it anywhere else. The newsletter is pretty well informed, but not really citable. Does anyone have any more information? It's also unclear whether this means they seriously expect to complete the patchy coverage of Ireland by that date. GrindtXX (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - I would frankly be amazed if Ireland was finished by 2023, given that Cork was four years late! And there are a few revised Englands still due, Durham/Wiltshire/?, although they’re out this year. And there’s the planned Isle of Man, . 2023 seems a little optimistic! KJP1 (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * p.s. - Looking at it, the article is rather cite-lite. There’s a job to be done. KJP1 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Scotland/Wales/Ireland sections
The sections for Scotland, Wales and Ireland are currently presented as lists, while the English volumes are recorded in a table. I wonder if it might look a bit better if the Scotland/Wales/Ireland sections were also put into tabular form. Any thoughts/objections? KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Just Ireland to go. KJP1 (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Photography

 * - interesting. KJP1 (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Boundaries
I've just re-written the 'boundaries' section of England as it was a little convoluted and also included Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. I just wanted to check that the series mostly uses the historic boundaries except for the six London volumes, Birmingham and the Black Country, and Cumbria. For example, I know that the two South Lancashire volumes ignore Merseyside and Greater Manchester and that County Durham and Northumberland ignore Tyne and Wear. Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I think you have over-simplified it, and have made it seem a lot more straightforward than it is. It is an important point, because someone might buy a volume, thinking a particular town is covered, only to discover it is not the case. There are tweaks and quirks all over the series, not just in the examples you give. My original intent (with the Birmingham/Black Country/Warwickshire instance which, is the most extreme example) was to give an idea of just how convoluted the series now is. Volumes which have been revised but no longer reflect their current boundaries include Surrey, Essex, Kent, Lancashire, Hertfordshire, Cumbria, Northumberland and Yorkshire. Stevouk (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * “include” but not limited to! Berkshire/Oxfordshire is another example, see the complications around Sutton Courtenay. Like much in life, the genesis of the Pevsners is complex, and does not readily lend itself to simplification/consistency. On a related note, I would have liked to have seen some discussion here before the, comprehensive, tables were zapped. KJP1 (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The previous tables were quite an impressive feat, but prose or a series of simpler tables could be a better way of explaining the series' publishing history. For example, the need for 24 footnotes to cover changes in title and scope can be avoided by focussing on the current volumes. I've also created a new table in the 'Superseded and unpublished volumes' section which shows how volumes have been superseded, split, or merged, and think this works quite well.
 * I am conscious that, in focussing the tables on the current revisions, the publication dates and in some cases the authors of older revisions have been removed. Personally, I don't think the publication dates are a great loss, but 'superseded' contributing authors could be mentioned in the prose – it is my aim to flesh out the history of the series a little more. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, as the creator of the original table, I now feel this has been deprecated. The information it contained was scattered across a number of non-online sources and hence not easily accessible, especially to someone seeking Pevsner's original surveys, and not the later revisions. Yale only supplies information about the current volumes, and in essence that is all this new table does, so is it even needed? It also contains a number of errors, but in truth I cannot be bothered taking the time to correct them. Stevouk (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What information do you think is not easily accessible, Stevouk? Someone wanting to buy the first edition of Berkshire, for example, can do so by searching 'Pevsner Berkshire first edition', and for me the first link was to a copy on AbeBooks.
 * Maybe the table isn't needed if it replicates Yale's website, although I do think it's handy to have that information in the article. I can't do anything about the errors you've identified, I'm afraid, as I don't know what they are. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm with Stevouk on this: the previous table was useful, and should not have been "simplified" in this way. Sure, the present table is useful if the reader just wants to know "what's the latest and fullest volume for my area?" (boundary issues aside); but many readers will come with a range of more nuanced questions, like "when did Pevsner himself first (or last) survey my area?" or "I want to know how the perception of a particular building has changed over time: how many and which BoE volumes is it likely to have featured in?" We can't hope to answer all questions of that kind, but the previous table at least gave a framework for pursuing them. And I'm afraid your argument that "people can go and look it up elsewhere" cuts no ice with me: that is (or should be) true of everything on Wikipedia, but the point of an encyclopedia is that it brings together core information in one place – and to my mind the publication history of the series is core information, and the table was a helpful way of presenting it. GrindtXX (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's Wikipedia's role to provide a full publication history for every volume. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue or archive. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly not wanting another row!, but I think there is a consensus of editors who favoured the old version. The key point is that it wasn't a buyers' guide - only nerds like me actively seek out the older versions once the new ones have rolled into print - but more a history of the series, which is rather complex. As such the details of the earlier editions were very valuable, and I don't know where else such a comprehensive list could be found. Personally, I would prefer a roll-back to the earlier version, to which we could then discuss improvements, here. KJP1 (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't stand in your way if that's the consensus. I'd ask that you keep my changes to the prose, however, which I do believe are an improvement. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * // - That's appreciated, thank you. I'm wondering on the best way forward. Rather than a whole-sale reversion, could I take the tables for this version,, drop them back in, and then we can take a look to ensure the surrounding prose matches. Would that work? Any better solutions? KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That works for me, and I appreciate you taking on the legwork of re-inserting the original tables; I'll be happy to help tidy up the prose once that's done. Is it worth keeping the new 'superseded volumes' table, as well? A.D.Hope (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort which went into the previous description of the boundaries, but this article isn't a buyer's guide to the series and doesn't need to give a comprehensive account of what is currently covered where; Yale should do that.
 * Not to challenge conventional wisdom too much, but is the series all that convoluted? It's unfortunate that Yale don't produce a full map of the English volumes – maybe they will after the new Staffordshire is published – but would it not show the historic boundaries being used almost everywhere except around London and Birmingham? The other metropolitan counties are largely ignored, and Cumbria is really 'Cumberland, Westmorland, and Lancashire-over-the-Sands'. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK - I've tried to:
 * Reintroduce the original tables;
 * Retain ADH's textual updates/improvements and the Superseded volumes table;
 * Convert three footnotes from the Ref style to Notes.

It will likely need some tidying up, and I shall have another look later. The issue with the lack of inline cites remains, and therefore so does the irritating banner. It's easily addressed, once my Pevsners are out of store. Hope that everyone involved is reasonably content with where we are, but obviously very happy to discuss any issues. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Very content, and I'll repeat that I'm grateful to you for doing the legwork. Now it's done I'll see if I can't help with the tidying up myself. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)