This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Evidently the editors haven't caught up with this article yet, which clearly isn't a stub at present. In fact, it is too long for Wikipedia guideines. In expanding it I didn't leave much of the original stub because there was so little there to work with. I tried to write a much briefer article than the one I ended with, but I decided that to give any sense of what Dickinson was up to it was necessary to look at the major works individually, and that took a lot of space. The only way I can see to better fit the article into the guidelines is to split it. But I believe the split would have to be arbitrary in terms of content. The split that would divide it nearly in half would have part 1 ending with Girl on Tennis Court and part 2 beginning with The Fossil Hunters. I'm not quite sure how to do this. I could title the parts "Edwin Dickinson, life and early studio paintings, 1915-1926" and "Edwin Dickinson, studio paintings, 1926-1964, portraits, and other smaller works." But these titles are awfully long. I could swap the sections around, but most of the portraits and smaller works come after 1926 and fit better in the sequence in which I put them. Or else I could title the parts "Edwin Dickinson part 1" and "Edwin Dickinson part 2." (Making the split between his history and his paintings would still leave the article on the paintings too lengthy, and his life and work are especially closely interconnected.) And there will have to be cross links. The alternative would be to have a disambiguation page titled "Edwin Dickinson" with the two parts listed. I would really like some ideas about this and how to best manage it. It's all new to me.
I am hoping that some kind souls will take it upon themselves to download illustrations for it. I spent more time than I should have writing the text and haven't time to deal with the pictures. But I did find all those I could and put in links to the most relevant ones. My understanding is that images that are used for non-profit, educational purposes and that are actually discussed in the article can be used under the fair use rule, even if they are copyrighted. But I don't want to deal with that. I believe there are forms to fill out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John L. Ward (talk • contribs) 22:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
First: Nice job on the expansion of this article! I'd recommend against any arbitrary division. The best way to proceed would be to create separate articles for each off the major paintings discussed. The relevant content from Edwin Dickinson can be pasted into the new articles, while the main article retains a brief summary with a link. For an example, see Francisco Goya and the several linked articles such as The Third of May 1808, Saturn Devouring His Sons, Caprichos, and so on. Ewulp (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your praise and input. After thinking about your suggestion my concerns about splitting off some of Dickinson's paintings is that in Goya's case someone might actually look up the black paintings or the Capricios as the subject of an article, but I strongly doubt that anyone would look up The Cello Player or Ruin at Daphne rather than Edwin Dickinson. Also, it makes more sense when, as with Goya's etchings or his black paintings, an assortment of images are available. I am still considering the idea, but I am trying to figure out how to leave enough in the Dickinson article to give an idea of the painting without repeating what is in the split-off article (and at the same time making it brief enough to reduce the size of the Dickinson article significantly). —Preceding unsigned comment added by John L. Ward (talk • contribs) 23:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ewulp's idea seems best. Splitting the articles off allows other ways of finding them, such as categories. Obviously there are still links from here. Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the split is called for - this article is way too long. Please don't worry too much about the relative obscurity of the paintings. Each painting will be linked to this article, and readers will find their way to them...Modernist (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)