Talk:Frederick Sandys

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Next steps

Hi, finding good refs sounds like a great next step! Would you mind if I organized the info into sections a bit to get us started?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I moved things around a little bit and put images into galleries - so that they're near the text written about them - and can add more works to give a good sense of his body of work. If you have something else you were thinking about, though, it can definitely be moved around. I'm working on the drawing and illustration piece right now. I think I wrote that somewhere else, but here I go...--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

it looks so much better already, I knew you could work your magic - well done! Panderoona (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed link

Unless I'm totally missing something, this link doesn't seem to go to any information:

• Frederick Sandys at Victorian Art in Britain.

agreed Panderoona (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't agree <g> Try using the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org and then, when citing, use the archiveurl and archivedate parameters as well as the standard url parameter. The content is at [1], which is the archiveurl. The archivedate is 26 Jun 2008. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my. How many ways am I confused by that? A lot. <g>

Are you saying that when you go to this link you find information there - or links to information? I just see pictures and I click all over the place but never go anywhere (except a contact form). Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Click on the blue [1] in my message. It takes you to an archived version of the content that used to be at the site you have been looking at. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've tried that, but I just get a "Wayback screen" that says there's info back to 2008 and that it's loading, but I don't know what that means. The key question is: do we want to have a link under "External links" that isn't going to be useful for someone? I think that there's many more easily accessible sources of info. What do you think? It could totally be that I'm missing something.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You have to give it a moment to load, sometimes up to a minute. The citation format would be something like:

• "Anthony Frederick Sandys 1829 - 1904". Victorian Art in Britain. Archived from the original on 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2011-06-15.

Outdenting... My gut feeling about this is that 1) we already have five external links and putting it back in that requires your basic user to wait might not be as helpful as the links that directly go to info and 2) there are a number of good sources out there. It might be best to rely on good sources first and come back to this if we're having holes in information. (It's very cool to know than when links don't bring up info there's a way to dig back and find out what used to be on the urls.) Thoughts about holding off unless we need to tap into that info?--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that (a) links are not always dead, and (b) before marking them as dead it is standard practice here to try the Wayback Machine (and Webcitation) & use it with the cite template etc if it works. I note that it has the necessary info for Cheyne Walk, which is mentioned in the article but was not cited when I last looked.

I really have only skimmed around the subject, so if and how you use sources is entirely up to you. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:DEADREF and (probably) WP:ELNO contain the guidelines. DEADREF is more important because Further Reading & Ext Links sections are more of a convenience than a necessity. Nonetheless, use Wayback there if you can and the content is useful. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I finally got impatient and clicked on the "impatient" link that brought me to the old page. What you say makes tons of sense for a citation. This was an "external link". There wasn't anything I read on that page that we cannot find in other places - the Norwich site alone has most of the information - but definitely something to circle back on if we're finding holes in the info. I definitely agree it's a cool tool to know about for future use - and appreciating you letting me in on it! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Next steps

Just a couple of things to run by you:

1. It seems that the information about Sandys' work in 1845 for Bulwer and 1849 with his father and Muskett from the Oxford article would be good to put in the early works section. (Alternatively, I could put it in the drawings illustration section.) Does that make sense?
2. I just realized that info about "The Nightware" was in early works - and well written - and I had put it under drawings/illustrations. It could either go in Early Works or under Drawings or Illustrations, both make sense. Do you have a preference?
3. I am a little confused by information that was initially put into the article about paintings, it seems a little contradictory - his paintings sealed his fame - but, his paintings were not popular and he painted just a little. Maybe this will be clarified as more info unfolds. Just a thought.

Night!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's disagreement, I'll take a stab at: 1) putting the 1845 info for Bulwer and 1849 with his father and Muskett from the Oxford article in the early works section and 2) consolidate "The Nightmare" info into early works, too (since it mentions that with it he became known in the London art community). And then I still have more work to do on the Drawings and illustration section.

Panderoona, since you brought me in yesterday to help, let me know if you I'm charging ahead too much and you want to change the break-up of the work. It seems there's a LOT of information about his paintings, his private life which affected his career and patronage and more out there. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

different person to the one you knew before, go right ahead I trust you absolutely. Panderoona (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Deducing...

I'm deducing from the recent edits:

• It's preferrable not to cite page numbers for Oxford articles and roll them up into one citation
• There's a particular template for Oxford articles to put into the citation
• It's preferrable not to use the "work" portion of the template in citations

Is that right?--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(This is still a work in progress, we just started on the refs so just checking.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would not cite page numbers for this. I think that ODNB is still available as a book but 95% of users would see the web version and, in any event, the page numbers do not reflect the book's page numbers (book is in alphabetical order, so no way is Sandys at page 1, etc). I tend to use the cite book template for ODNB, along with the chapter parameter for the article title ... and leave page numbers out. Has worked ok for my GAs.

If a subscription is required to view a url then that should be noted. This is usually done using the {{subscription required}} template. However, ODNB is a special case & has its own template because of that. The template inserts the "UK public library ... blah blah" info.

I have never found a use for the "work" parameter. The guidance says that, "If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work. Do not italicize; the software will do so automatically." Tbh, I cannot think of many situations where it might be necessary & I cannot think of a long-standing editor here who uses it much (if at all). I wouldn't dismiss it outright but doing it the way it was done in this article meant that you had two blue-linked urls with the same title but actually going to different webpages, which looks odd and confusing to me. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, great points that I hadn't considered/forgot: Oxford content is viewed differently by most, generally online (I forgot that), the template indicates one must have a subscription (not specific just to Oxford), and the use of the work template throws off the formatting, I never noticed that. Thanks!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Artistic sister

A tantalising reference to what may be Fred's arty sister here. Presumably not the Emma who was aka Miss Clive! - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It is his sister. Prettejohn says that some of her work was so good that it may have been mistakenly attributed to Fred. Well, that is based on a snippet view of this book. Need to nail it down somehow because it is a point worth making in the article. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

See this - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Emma has her own page on Wikipedia although its rather wanting (what have I started!) see Emma Sandys. one ref I found to her artwork is here Emma SandysPanderoona (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

ref here to her work being mistaken for his - however its a blog? Panderoona (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

shes listed in Oxford DNB but I cant read it http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/63/101063041/ Panderoona (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All fascinating stuff - good work guys, you rock! Well done for finding the ref on Simeon Solomon oooo more things to look up woohoo!! Found image of Sappho Here - looks like Keomi to me. :) Panderoona (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Very cool information about Emma, the sister! Thanks for the image of the study of Sappho, I'll add it to the drawings section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the Sappho painting one by Sandys? When I tried to save it, the default file name had the Simeon Solomon's name. Maybe you were sharing because it looked like Keomi - not that it was a Sandys painting?Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As with Somerby, rushing is not A Good Thing. That has gone a little pear-shaped (for now) and this will go the same way if we are not careful. Take a step back and think about possible connections and problems, P. Sappho was a popular subject for paintings (says someone who knows next to nowt about art!)

BTW, yes, the link you provide is a blog and I wouldn't trust it. All we need to do is find the few pages surrounding the Prettejohn book I mentioned above. It is not that difficult to do; we can tap into WP:RX if we have to. Websites should always be the last resort, not the first port. OK, that was more McGonagal than Tennyson, but you know what I mean. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I may have been the one that misunderstood the meaning of the Sappho painting, because I now see Panderoona mentioned it in connection with the Simeon Solomon ref. I get your point about first places to look. As an FYI, websites that I look at first are museum's art sites (in this case, such as the Norwich Castle Museum). I'll definitely look at the book you mentioned - thanks for calling it out!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Museums etc are fine, so are government websites and other official stuff. But they form a very small part of the stuff out there & so if in doubt then try to find another source. Blogspot/Wordpress etc are never going to be reliable for this sort of stuff, nor is Hello magazine or some personal website. If you can see more of the book than we can then great. If not, I'll ask at RX. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

please recheck and go with what you know as you two know more than me. Im not being "funny" but when it comes to this kind of info I know for a fact that is the case. Panderoona (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Delaware Art Museum project

The editors of this article might be interested in WP:DelArt. We'd be delighted to have you join us.-PKM (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC) -PKM (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frederick Sandys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724015437/http://www.sandys.norfolk.gov.uk/preraph1.htm to http://www.sandys.norfolk.gov.uk/preraph1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)