Well, it seems to me then that the question remains how to create an online medium which has editorial groups and some degree of careful consensus required, for slow editing. We've had many similar discussions over the years. I guess most of us love the Henry project, but wish a few more people could help so it could move forward. Many of us respect Charles Cawley's ambitions and effort, but wish also that he would have a way of not moving ahead sometimes too quickly. I am a big admirer of Richardson's books which contain new tweaks every edition also. It still seems to me that a wiki server is probably the most obvious medium to help small-scale structured team-work, even though they are most famously used for larger scale projects with little editorial control. Anyway, I am surprised to see so little talk about that practical aspect: the medium. I think that until someone ssomething up we do have this forum at least for registering our doubts and new discoveries and comparing them to standard works like CP, Keats-Rohan, Richardson, VCH, HOP, and so on. At least that helps us cover well-known families in a way we can find back reasonably easily. I applaud the "Corrections" pages on FMG and on Chris Phillips' website as very helpful for keeping track of such things. But it is obvious that better is possible with the internet and more will happen eventually. If this idea about manorial histories gets concrete maybe it will be great, and can rapidly make VCH irrelevant. I am thinking the devil is in the details and it will be interesting to see how to make it work in practice. I suppose most people active on this forum have worked on bits of a few manorial histories and probably also found errors in references works while doing it. Regards Andrew Stewart Baldwin wrote: >Although this is better than most sources on this topic, it is still an example of too few people trying to do too much. I haven't examined that many VCH accounts in great detail, but those that I have checked carefully suggest caution. taf wrote: >This is a pervasive problem with History of Parliament. It is simply not practicable for a single editor or small group of editors to independently research the thousands of people whose biographies they must compile.