Talk:Iyanya Onoyom Mbuk

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Pop music

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles

Biography

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Nigeria

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria 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.NigeriaWikipedia:WikiProject NigeriaTemplate:WikiProject NigeriaNigeria articles

Image without the logo

A version of the image without the logo is available at File:Iyanya studio image - white background.jpg on the Wikimedia Commons. Assuming I'm right and there the original image's license allows for such a transformation, consider using this version instead of the one that is currently being used. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer the original version. The modified version looks, for lack of a better term, cartoon-ish. Since you went through the trouble of adding a white background, you deserve an award. Perhaps, your award can be to replace the modify version with the original. lol Maybe I should get other people's thoughts.

@Jamie Tubers: and @Darreg:, what do you guys think about this? Do you prefer the modified version Davidwr created or the original file? versace1608 (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I think I prefer the current image. I think the logo should be removed though. Same with that of Tiwa Savage. I can do the little work of removing the logos if you guys don't mind?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamie Tubers: I don't think you should remove the logo. We should credit TCD Photography for their work. Without them approving these images, there would be no images. versace1608 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They've already been credited, adding them as the author of the picture is enough credit. It is infact stated somewhere on Wiki that Logos and watermarks are not encouraged on images or something like that. But It was just a suggestion though. Regards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Maybe this is the reason why Davidwr modified the file in the first place. I don't have a problem with looking at TCD Photography's logo. versace1608 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the logo per Wikipedia's desire for logo-free images was my primary motivator. I tried using a grey background over just the logo at first but because the original background was not a uniform color, it just looked bad. I don't have the software handy do automatically "fill" the space with a good-looking grey blend. A nicely-blended image that looks like the original but with a nicely-blended-in grey spot where the logo is would be the ideal solution. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace, incase you change your mind, I'm readily available to remove the logo ;)--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the discussion has almost been finalised let me just give my contribution. Since the new image is more in line with Wikipedia convention and standard as a result of the absence of the logo I think it is more preferable. Its a good thing that they are all free so even the ones not being presently used would still be available in Commons. Darreg (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A note to whoever makes a new version: If your tools allow it, preserve any still-relevant EXIF and IPTC information. In particular, preserve the original author/creator and original copyright holder information. If your tools and/or file format do not allow it, put the information in some similar "data" field such as a JPEG comment field and/or put them in the file's description page as "additional information." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamie Tubers: You can go ahead and remove the logo from images. You are the photographer in the bunch. Just remember to add the information Davidwr pointed out. versace1608 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how to upload the new version. I don't have a commons account and I don't want to have one.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the login info for your Wikipedia account to log into Commons. versace1608 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the Commons photo. I don't know if It is appropriately tagged. [1] --Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. There's a licensing issue regarding the Gnu license. I've notified the uploader. Once that's taken care of, we can put it in this article in place of the existing one. By the way, I cross-linked the 3 versions in the "other versions=" fields and put the new version in the proper category. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks davidwr. versace1608 (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: I think the newly uploaded file is ready to be use in the article. Can you please perform the replacement? versace1608 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. This looks much better than my version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oyesunkanmi: please fix up the licensing issues that I pointed out on commons:User talk:Oyesunkanmi. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could be of help. And just fix any necessary things please. I'm not familiar with how commons work.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, if you are "Oyesunkanmi" on the Commons, just put a reply on your talk page asking me to fix it. If you are not that person, then, unfortunately, that person should be the one making the change. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]