Talk:List of Vanity Fair (British magazine) caricatures

Discussion

Great idea. Keep up the good work :-) Drutt 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm just collating 1871 onwards ready to do a big edit! Thanks for adding the links, I've not come up with a way to do that automatically for the subjects yet: suggestions on a postcard... Richard.shakeshaft 18:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Does a comprehensive list of cartoonists exist anywhere? The best I've found is this, though it's missing several names. Drutt 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of - and that list is more comprehensive than the one I had! I think that this certainly needs incorporating into the page, and links to the artists providing as I have started doing. Richard.shakeshaft 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the data that I have is now on the page. I have left blanks where I have no information, so hopefully it can be filled in by someone else... The data I had to start with was formatted very differently so I have had to do a lot of tidying up and trying to make sure things are formatted uniformly. I am sure that some things will have slipped through my net, but I have been staring at the data for too long to try and do any more tidying! Richard.shakeshaft 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. I'm slowly sorting through my collection of prints and will gradually tidy the article as I go. It may be helpful to break them up into yearly subsections for ease of editing. Drutt 14:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see the problem: you would then lose the sortability of the list. I'm going to do the following: change date format from 10 Jan 1900 to 1900-01-10, so that the list sorts correctly (I'll write a script to do it automatically). Drutt 15:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad you realised the sorting issue, as that was indeed the reason for uploading the data in one hit, although it does make for a large page. As for the date sorting, it appears to work ascending in the current format, but not descending. Maybe I should have tested it further before assuming dd mmm yyyy was the right choice... Sorry! Richard.shakeshaft 17:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the date format. Next thing (I know nothing about wiki sort tables): is there a way of (eg.) sorting "John Smith" as "Smith, John"? Drutt 18:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff (and for the additions!). I don't think there's a way of sorting as you would like without reformatting the data. I did consider this, but I felt that it was more useful to be able to see who the person was. Personally, I envisaged the sorting being of most use for the date of publication and the artist as the standard 'search' function would find the subject of the cartoon. Richard.shakeshaft 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

HCO?

Do we know who HCO (or HLG, HCG--difficult to be sure) was? Drutt 19:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at present... but I'll add it to the list of outstanding questions. I have realised that the list of artists (based on the URL you found) needs to be updated to include the other artists listed in the table. Richard.shakeshaft 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Drawl

On the wikipedia page on the magazine Vanity fair appears a caricature by Drawl of Pr Kruger published in 1899. Why neither the caricature of Kruger is listed here nor the name of Drawl in the list of caricaturist. I am interested in knowing who was Drawl as I possess the Baden Powell caricature by Drawl published on the 5th of july 1900. Please answer hereafter. A french anglomaniac...

The article definitely needs expanding. This long list should be completed also. This link gives a description of various artists there including:

Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger. Drawl. March 8, 1900. "Oom Paul."

There was no link at the image description, so no more clues there. I will check a reference sometime soon. ? Fred|? discussion|? contributions 22:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, thanks for drawing attention to that strange gap in 1900. I've tried to fill it out as best as possible, but some entries remain undetermined. I'm afraid I have no idea who Drawl was. Also, there appear to be two prints associated with July 12 1900. Can anyone confirm this? Drutt

Problem solved: Buller was January 18 1900 not July 12. Drutt (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I would suggest that a better reference is needed than the couple of art galleries I have found. Incidentally, I removed 1.5 thousand reiterations of the link to ape and spy. The page is over 200 KB and took my computer sometime to load, unfortunately this may need to be rectified. Any ideas? ? Fred|? discussion|? contributions 23:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is a serious problem, but I don't see an easy way out of it. We could in extremis remove the Caption and Notes columns, but I'd clearly prefer not to do that if at all possible. Drutt 13:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've streamlined the article in various ways: removal of remaining signature links, date links, artist names, superfluous formatting, punctuation and spacing. I don't see it ever getting smaller than this (160kb). Drutt 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a great big bright red (-49,769) on my watchlist, well done. The list is useful and the info should stay, I can see no way of splitting it either. It is a good deal more managable at least. ? Fred|? discussion|? contributions 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 Some english friend, I mentionned my research on Drawl drew my attention to the fact that Drawl was the anagram of Ward
 adding the L of Leslie making a play on words "drôle" having two meanings in French funny or stange.  What do you 
  think of it ? The french anglomaniac...

Interesting, L. Ward reversed is indeed Drawl. That's unlikely to be a coincidence. I've no idea why he would use a pseudonym. Drutt 21:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 Any interest in a bio of Prosper d'Epinay ? I could translate it for you. The french anglomaniac...

Encouragement!

It's great to see the page developing and people taking an interest! Thanks, Drutt, for all of the work you're putting into it with the links, adding some of the missing data, and tidying up what seem to be numerous errors in my original data! Richard.shakeshaft 21:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Every now and again I pop back to look at the page, and Drutt's contribution is absolutely amazing! Hats off to your research, editing, and constant tidying of the list! Richard.shakeshaft (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, nearly done now. Just a few loose ends to tie up. Drutt (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research?

I don't get it. Isn't this page Original Research? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 08:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, are you referring to the speculation about the identity of "Drawl"? Drutt (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

In order to simplify and reduce the size of the article I've moved the introduction and external links to Vanity Fair (magazine, historical), and the list of artists to Vanity Fair artists. Drutt (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple prints

The following editions appear to have several prints associated:

• 1881-12-07 Parnell and Dillon / Gladstone and Bradlaugh
• 1901-01-31 Provost of Eton / Queen Victoria
• 1905-05-25 Roberts / Stevenson
• 1906-09-05 Loder / Gant
• 1909-10-06 Shackleton / Lunn
• 1909-12-23 Tennant / Carlile
• 1909-12-30 Harris / Vickers
• 1910-01-06 Barker / Belilios / du Cros / Younger
• 1911-06-21 King George / Brown

Drutt (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The World

As an aside, I've come across a couple of pictures produced by Leslie Ward for The World: Duncan McKinnon and the Duke of Rutland. Drutt (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Captain Scott in 1910 Drutt (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another: Lloyd-George, 1909 Drutt (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about this magazine? WP doesn't appear to have an article on it. (see World (disambiguation)). When did it cease publication? Drutt (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the London newspaper/magazine/journal edited and founded by Edmund Yates, the red link on that page (and from the VF list) goes to The World (journal). From [1] "Edmund Yates was an English novelist, and he founded The World, a weekly society newspaper in 1874." There are more details in [2] but it seems likely the paper went under when Yates was imprisoned for libel in 1885. Judging from what I've read though it looks like a newspaper deserving its own article... if we could only find enough info. /Lokal_Profil 13:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The World is The Pictorial World (see this), which was apparently published in London from 1874 to 1892.[3]. Drutt (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Mrs Starr

Is the lady pictured in the 1869-02-20 print Mary Ann Starr or Susan Mary Saurin? I suspect the latter. Starr seems to have been a rather unpopular figure, and is unlikely to have been made the subject of a sympathetic caricature. Drutt (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've since managed to get hold of a copy of the text of this print and can confirm it is Starr. Drutt (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved issues

• Print numbers are not listed
• Many series numbers remain undetermined; there are also some contradictions in the numbering (eg. two Sovereigns 08)
• The horse portraits Cyllene, Sceptre/Maid of Corinth and Santry need dating
• There are many gaps after 1912; I don't know which of these represent missing prints
• Individuals featured in several of the double-page group pictures need to be identified (1883-11-27, 1886-11-30, 1887-12-06, 1891-12-05, 1894-12-06, 1896-06-11, 1896-11-26, 1897-06-03, 1898-12-01, 1899-11-23, 1901-11-28)
• Many prints are unsigned, and/or their artists unknown
• The caption of 1905-10-19 (Bowles) is incomplete

Drutt (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved issues II

• Judges 25, 26, 41 are missing
• Judges 67-69 are erroneously numbered 60-62*
• There are two Men 366 and no Men 370*
• There are two Men 388, 576, 825, 829
• Men 950-959 are erroneously numbered 940-949*
• After Men 1328 the numbering jumps to 2270
• There are two Princes 8 and no Princes 7*
• There are two Princes 9 and no Princes 10*
• There are two Statesmen 535, 730, 755
• Statesmen 739, 740, 742 are missing
• There are two Sovereigns 8
• There is no Sovereigns 22
• There are two People 1
• The category "Our Celebrities" continues the "Men" numbering
• The artists responsible for the following are unknown: 1908-12-23 (de Lara), 1911-06-07 (Alexandra), 1913-08-27 (Bebel), 1901-12-26 (Cuch Behar), 1893-01-21 (Spain), 1881-12-07 (Gladstone & Bradlaugh)
• I don't know where to place this print (DM Gant).
• Two very similar images of the Prince of Wales appear to have the same date, 1878-12-14: [4] and [5]
• Due to limited space, I have not listed all of the people featured in some of the double prints

Errors marked with an asterisk are due to misprinted numbers, and could be corrected easily. However I have hesitated to do this because it may cause as much confusion as it resolves. Drutt (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you find a solution to the Gant print? From [6] it looks as though it's from Sept 5th 1906 but I notice it's crosse out from "multiple prints" above.

In addition to the above I found that this is listed as "M 1326" but has "1316" printed on the image. /Lokal_Profil 02:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Gant is a mystery. There's no mention of him anywhere in Matthews & Mellini, and there are no obvious gaps in the "Men" numbering where he might go. Bonar Law and Inge are both marked as 1316 but according to M&M the former is a misprint. Drutt (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Weird. Is the date credible? Has it been seen in any other sources? /Lokal_Profil 15:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think "No limit" refers to a high-stakes gambler, in this case presumably on horseracing. But google or yahoo search finds nothing. ?! Rcbutcher (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Think it is this guy. Apparently he was a turf accountant based at 25 Conduit Street, London. /Lokal_Profil 13:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

I have made heavy use of redirects in order to keep this page at a reasonable size. Please do not replace them with direct links to the articles. Drutt (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Links to Images

Editors have begun adding links to images in the article. This is relevant and useful, but also has the potential to make the article unacceptably large. It may be better to add such links to individual articles, but many of the caricatured individuals do not have (and may not deserve) their own articles. How should this situation be handled? Drutt (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone has begun adding inline images; by a rough calculation, this will add 150kb to the page. Drutt (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am that "somebody". And I agree that it's a dumb idea as it stands, because as you say the page size will balloon unacceptably, even with just links rather than thumbnails. But the list does need links to the images to be useful, as, as has been said, many individuals may not have their own article or the article may not include the caricature. Also, I would think some viewers would only want to locate and view a particular image. I had considered breaking up the list into separate lists such as by year, but that negates the sort by date feature and is a problem if the viewer doesn't know which years to look for. Are we back at the start, with leaving out links to images in the interests of speeding up the list download ? As i see it, a major advantage of adding a link of some sort to the image is that this page acts as a register of which images are on Wiki and which still need to be sourced... there are enough sources online to actually build the entire collection on Wiki.. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would be nice to have them. Ideally the list would contain the image number as well. I left that out because it's not really essental. Let's see how it goes. where are you getting the pictures? Is there a site online with them all? Drutt (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Various sites online with decent images. None are complete, but together I think provide most :

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/26746018@N03/tags/vanityfair
• http://www.darvillsrareprints.com/vanityfairhome.htm
• http://angloboerwarmuseum.com/Boer91l_pastdis_vanity.html
• http://www.OldImprints.com
• http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/saction.php?search=ss&firstRun=true&sText=vanity+fair
• http://www.oldprintgallery.com
• http://iris.lib.virginia.edu/rmds/vanityfair/
• http://www.sebraprints.com.au
• http://www.lordprice.co.uk
• http://www.vanity-fair-prints-company.com
• http://www.goantiques.com
• http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/picturescatalogue?action=PCSearch&mode=search&attribute2=Aggregation&term2=BIB&op1=AND&attribute1=any+field&term1=vanity+fair
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/26746018@N03/sets/72157605554051728/with/3511097504/

They are all really just thumbnails but good enought to illustrate the subject, and are all Public Domain by age (except Sickert who won't be PD outside the US until 2013) - people can buy the real thing if they are interested, so by using these images we are helping the providers by bringing people to their websites - a win-win swituation IMHO. I still feel the list of Caricatures needs to be shorted - HTML was never intended to cope with such large pages, and as it stands is really unusable for folks on phone connections. But how to break it up while retaining the great sort feature ??? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

One workaround is to use redirects rather than direct links, so that, for example, the page links to HL Grosvenor instead of Hugh Grosvenor, 1st Duke of Westminster. Can this be done for images as well? Drutt (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Another workaround is to create a mirror of this page on Commons where you do include the images. That way anyone browsing Wikipedia should be able to open this page as normal (independent of bandwidth) but has the option of going to the Commons page if they want to see the images as well. That the page is huge on Commons is not a problem since no one browsing Commons should ever be surprised by huge pages. /Lokal_Profil 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Started working on such a page here ./Lokal_Profil 11:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, do you know where to place this print. The name appears to be "D.M. Gant". It doesn't show up in any of the lists I've seen. Drutt (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How important is the categorisation? Where does it come from, anyway? Maybe the "Notes" column is expendable... StAnselm (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's taken from Matthews & Mellini. Drutt (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources

The information I have added to the following articles

• Vanity Fair (magazine, historical)
• Vanity Fair artists
• List of Vanity Fair caricatures

Was taken from the following sources

• E. Harris & R. Ormond, Vanity Fair: An Exhibition of Original Cartoons (London: National Portrait Gallery 1976)
• R. Matthews & P. Mellini, In ‘Vanity Fair’ (London: Scolar Press 1982)
• L. Ward, Forty Years of 'Spy' (London: Chatto & Windus 1917)

Drutt (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Collapse of the Conference"

Which conference is being parodied in the 1913-12-10 print? Drutt (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible the London Conference of 1913, with "Collapse" referring to its failure to prevent the Second Balkan War. But I don't know the significance of the dates June 17 and November 10. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

James Montgomery Flagg (died 1960) copyright status regarding Vanity Fair ?

As far as I understand, he worked in the US and sent over caricatures for publication in Vanity Fair... normally, US works published before 1923 are now PD. But is that PD status global or just in the US ? The way I see it, his work is still under copyright in the UK, i.e. the place of first publication, under the life + 70 years rule. The way I see it, I can only upload his Vanity Fair stuff to EN wiki as PD-US, not to Commons. Is this correct ? Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds correct. The same thing probably applies to Jean de Paléologue ("PAL") as well (American but publishing in France and Britain). /Lokal_Profil 14:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean we need to remove PAL's stuff from Commons ? Such as the Leslie Ward caricature ? Rcbutcher (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably. I've intended to open a deletion nomination on them but haven't got around to it yet. I've tried to create a list at commons:User:Lokal_Profil/Test#Artists with info on the artists and licensing issues. /Lokal_Profil 11:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that... I've added explanations to both the EN and Commons categories so hopefully people will understand why they are in 2 different places.. I am uploading to either depending on death date of author if known. Authors which still remain anonymous I will asume meet the "70 years after publication" rule and hence may be uploaded to Commons. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For those only known under pseudonyms {{Anonymous-EU}} should apply (or now that I've looked closer at it {{PD-UK-unknown}} might be better). For those whose name is known but year of death isn't (including those with only "active" years) I'm less sure. It might be worth an enquiry at Commons talk:Licensing to make sure these are ok. /Lokal_Profil 15:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For the images uploaded to en.wiki use {{PD-US-1923-abroad|out_of_copyright_in=YYYY}} that way it clearly shows that it shouldn't be uploaded to Commons and additionally it automatically changes when going out of copyright. Especially useful for "GDG" whose works go out of copyright next year. BTW feel free to add details to the artist list at Commons (linked above) if you find any additional info. /Lokal_Profil 15:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you flagged File:Heavy Brigade.jpg for deletion, on the grounds that Giles died in 1941 i.e. less than 70 years ago. But if this was published before 1923 it is PD in the US and hence can be uploaded to the en wiki. The work was painted in 1880 and presumably many editions were published before 1923 as this was prime British Empire stuff. So I don't understand why it should be deleted. ?? Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr John Laurence Toole, "A Spelling Bee"

Is this in fact the same person as John Lawrence Toole? /Lokal_Profil 02:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "The Spelling Bee" was one of his shows : See http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/john-lawrence-toole/reminiscences-of-j-l-toole-volume-1-loo/page-15-reminiscences-of-j-l-toole-volume-1-loo.shtml

... Laurence appears to be the correct spelling, based on documents of the time returned by searches. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed the link here and on the image page. /Lokal_Profil 16:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edward Jenkins (MP)

Please forgive if this is the wrong place to ask, but I wonder whether anyone who knows how to go about these things could upload an image of Edward Jenkins (MP) (1838–1910)? He's in the list of caricatures dated 1878-08-31, but I can't find any caricatures of him on Commons. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Done ! Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks, Rod. Nice work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split

Congrats to those involved in compiling this list: it's a wonderfully comprehensive catalogue that period's richest source of British caricatures of notables.

However, it's far too long. This was discussed above at Links to Images, where the concern was that the image links would make it too big ... but even without them, it's still way too long. And including image thumbnails is really helpful.

It seems to me that the simplest way to split it would be chronologically, though I'm not sure what size of chunk is best. The list covers the period 1868–1914, so if split by year it would produce an unwieldy set of 46 individual lists. I suggest instead splitting it into half-decades: 1869-70, 71-75, 76-80, etc: the resulting nine lists would be much more manageable than this big one. (If editors prefer, I'd be equally happy to split 1870-74, 75-79, 80-84, etc)

I am aware that any split this will break the rather useful alphabetic-sortability of the whole lot (both by subject and by artist), but I can't see any way of avoiding this and keeping the list useable. I would have no objection to creating parallel A-Z splits by artist and by subject, tho I fear that there might be concerns about the maintainability of such a content fork.

I am happy to do the work myself if there is consensus on how to split, because I can use a Perl script offline to automate the job. However, I won't do anything unless and until there is a consensus on whether and how to split.

On a technical note, we could have sets of both chronological and by-artist lists without creating a content fork, by using sub-lists which are combined in different ways, and are then sortable as a whole. For example the 1870-74 list would transclude 1870-74/Ape, 1870-74/Coide, 1870-74/Ape, 1870-74/Nast, 1870-74/Cecioni, etc ... while the Coide list would transclude 1870-74/Coide, 1875-79/Coide, etc.

For an example of a list transcluded from sublists, see one I did before: List of National Monuments of Ireland, which transcludes List of National Monuments in County Carlow, List of National Monuments in County Cavan, List of National Monuments in County Clare, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What about splitting them by the existing codes or categories? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it needs splitting - I gave up putting in links a while ago because it took too long and I imagine I could make a cup of tea while waiting for it to sort. Five Years was good enough for David Bowie Motmit (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

@Kittybrester: we could split by the code, but I'm not clear what the codes mean. That may just me not getting up to speed, but I'm not sure that it will the most useful approach for the reader. Wikipedia is written for a non-specialist audience, so it seems to me that the basis for the split should start by asking "what way of splitting this will work best for the non-specialist reader". I reckon that the three most likely keys for the reader would be subject, date, and artist, in that order. What do others think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It would have to be done by date. That's how most people will want to view it. Losing the ability to sort by category will be a blow however. I expect some non-Wikipedia website will soon offer that service if it's removed here. Drutt (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It was always going to be a long list when I embarked on the original list some time ago. While I do like the completeness of a single article, the question of usability is, I know, an important one. Personally I believe that date is the key field so it would, logically, be split into decades (although a little leeway at start and finish, i.e. '68-'80 and '01-'14 would help keep the number of articles to a minimum). Within each page (and in my example there would only be four) users could still sort by category and the usefulness of including images would surely outweigh the inconvenience of four sorts. Richard.shakeshaft (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I like BrownHairedGirl's idea of splitting it into sublists which can also be combined. Also - are you aware that there are in fact 2 versions of this list : a far more complete version is on Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lokal_Profil/Test We also need to address that issue - there are many images only kept on the En server because their authors died after 1940, and hence these images can only be displayed on the version of the list here on the EN server. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. Given there is a complete master on Commons, perhaps there could be a separate list article for each subject (sorted/subdivided by date). OK some might appear in more than one list but nothing wrong with that. See also Wikibooks The Rowers of Vanity Fair. Motmit (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If size is no longer an object, is it worth adding the magazine edition number to the list of fields (eg. Disraeli / No. 13)? Then this would be a complete compendium of information. (Incidentally, Matthews and Mellini is now viewable online here) Drutt (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Commons version of this page has now been split into years to improve load times. The full (sortable) table still exists at commons:List of Vanity Fair caricatures/all but any editing is done on the relevant subpage. Any comments/opinions are welcome. /Lokal_Profil 17:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I propose that the list of caricatures be removed from this page as it merely duplicates what is on Commons. We can just have a comment telling people that the full up-to-date list is on Commons - there is already a Commons link. Images that are not on Commons because the author died less than 70 years agon are still represented by a link on a red background to the image here on EN Wiki, so nothing is lost.Rcbutcher (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(2012)

I prefer to keep it here, rather than in Commons.

This editor is strongly affected by the load time.

But one of my own pages was split into 9 pieces due to size, and that becomes overly complicated.

 

How about a simple split by century?

Pulling off the 20th century removes ~35%.

Varlaam (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Split declined. Splitting by size is not appropriate as the list is not too long, and would break up the integrity of the list. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:SPLITLIST. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SIZESPLIT says if the article is over 100k then the article almost certainly should be split. This article is about 230k. The problem is exacerbated by the images. When I revert the removal of the split tag then I will try and split the article by 5 year groups. It is not ideal, but at least it will mean loading the article does not lock your computer. If there is a problem then it is ok to revert me and do what you think is best. Sorry if that sounds high handed, but something desperately needs to be done. Op47 (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

1878-09-07

How sure are we that the 1878-09-07 print is of Lord Kensington? Other sources (e.g. uk parliment) seem to indicate it was Earl of Londesborough. Which also agrees with the image in that article and the caricature [7], and aparently he was a conservative whip [8]. Just wanted to check here before uploading under either of the names. /Lokal_Profil 15:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Both men have beards and are described as 'whips' but Kensington is 7 September and Londesborough is 19 October. Drutt (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

True. Sorry about that, must be getting tired. /Lokal_Profil 21:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Vanity Fair (British magazine) caricatures → List of Vanity Fair caricatures – Relisted for further opinions. Jafeluv (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Unnecessary disambiguation. None of the other Vanity Fairs are ever likely to have a list of caricatures. Opera hat (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• The title should say which of the 'Vanity Feir' magazines the caricatures are/were in. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I think we need to keep the "British magazine" to disambiguate, as Anthony says. For most people on the planet today "Vanity Fair magazine" is the current American one. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Addendum: I seem to recall that the US Vanity Fair published caricatures in the 1930s, but of actors and whatnot.
The corresponding Artists page does not at present use the "British magazine" qualifier.
Varlaam (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)