Talk:Nathan Wyburn

Conflict of interest and promotional

I've cleaned this and removed a lot of the fluff. Article's primary author was Ilovetoastart (talk · contribs). 99.137.210.226 (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

[Redacted a BLP vio] 100.34.209.153 (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you like us to focus on "deviant", "preens" or "tripe" here? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That sort of homophobic comment deserves a permanent block IMO. Nothing to do with totalitarianism, simply preventing vile, offensive, unnecessary language. Sionk (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nathan Wyburn. 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/20160303230223/http://www.thesprout.co.uk/en/events/nathan-wybur-kind-of-art/09145.html to http://www.thesprout.co.uk/en/events/nathan-wybur-kind-of-art/09145.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 06:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Image

Hi editors, Just to give a heads-up, Nathan himself has sent me an image to use in the infobox to replace the current temp one I uploaded recently. The current one is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:S1270002B-NathanWyburn-Cropped.jpg The proposed new one is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NathanWyburn-inStudio-C.jpg I am waiting for the photographer to send permission to OTRS so I'd keep the original one for now, especially if I can't obtain the permissions to distribute the image. All of the images I've uploaded in the past have been my own so if I'm doing anything wrong, please reply to this or leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mthowells200130 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. A reasonably good image and better than many at Wikipedia. I hope you have more luck with your new image than I have had over at Commons and here. I've tried to upload at least three before now and all have fallen foul of the intricate and unfathomable copyright bureaucracy. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Martin, I have been following this article for a while and wondered where the images have gone. I'm really hoping this one can be approved but if not I may have to take another one myself. Nathan's onboard to help out with providing images but making sure we have the licences is the issue. Mthowells200130 (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I would guess that a self-taken photo is going to be about 99% easier than trying to use someone else's. Yes, Nathan is always very helpful. But fingers crossed anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nathan Wyburn with Tom Moore Foot Painting MNT 0057.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

how he produces his mosaics

Is there any mention online of how he produces his mosaics? because it's fairly simple to create them using websites such as https://mosaically.com/ so how can we vet that he made them himself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 12:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC (UTC)

To Hogyncymru, I can't speak for the artist, however I think I remember seeing that he uses Photoshop. I have worked with him (COI declared above) on a digital collage, and I had to arrange and sort the images based on contents and colour of the image. This was a manual process and definitely not computer-generated. Even if he does use digital tools to assemble the image, he still has to collate the images (most of which are donated to him specifically for the collages he makes from users on Facebook). I know Nathan gets a lot of flack for his digital collages for the very reason you commented, which is why his collages are only a small part of his portfolio. Hope this helps, Mthowells200130 (Matthew) | Talk | COI 13:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru:, hi! We simply don’t need to “believe him”. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedians to carry out original research to “vet”. The only “vetting” needed is to vet that he meets WP:N.

If he uses a website like mosaically that’s fine— we maintain a neutral point of view as editors. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 02:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If you were a seasoned editor, you'd have realised that.. in verbatim of the neutral point of view page you included;

"This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards."

Please be careful not to threaten other editors when they do not break any wiki rules because this can be seen as misuse. Hogyncymru (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Prune

I've give this article a severe prune. Reasons include:

• Summary style - This most definitely isn't. We don't need month-by-month mentions of every tv appearance, celebrity mention etc, etc.
• Verifiability - chunks had no citations at all / some having tags in place since 2016. Others were sourced to such as Facebook. I've trimmed a lot of the tagged stuff, added my own tags in other places, and taken out stuff without RS sourcing;
• Outdated - I've removed bits that were outdated/uncited, e.g. "movie due for release in 2021".
• Tone - the tone, which has lots of other problems like masses of journalese, is overwhelmingly positive, I would go as far as to say promotional. For example, what does this sentence of the lead mean - "He has personally created works of art for Tom Holland, Prince William & Kate Middleton, Charles III, Mariah Carey, Dame Shirley Bassey, Sir Tom Jones, Debbie Harry, Sting, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Idris Elba, and The Jacksons"? It reads to me as if these individuals have commissioned the works, but I don't actually think that is the case. I think what it really means is he has created unsolicited images of/for them. I see his own website describes Wyburn as a "critically-acclaimed" artist. Is there, in fact, a single art critic of note who has commented on his work? One more example, by way of illustration re. tone; the article, as it stood, says of the drag fundraiser at St Andrew's; "ultimately preventing its closure. The event not just saved the building..." Was this event the only fundraising activity undertaken, and thus the sole saviour? And was Cadw otherwise going to let a Grade II* listed building fall down?
• COI - I see there is a COI declaration in place, for the editor who has upload the majority (?) of the images, which are sourced to Wyburn. What I'm not seeing is evidence of compliance with the COI guidance: "COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead." Apologies if I missed it, but I can see evidence to the contrary, Diff.
• Copyvio - I landed here when doing some copyvio work, having never heard of Wyburn previously. There certainly was evidence of cv; e.g.

Article text - "In July 2018 Wyburn created a portrait of Welsh politician Aneurin Bevan, on the moors near the highest village in Wales, Trefil, during the 70th anniversary week of the National Health Service. The artwork, which took eight and a half hours to complete, was made entirely out of local materials, including 374 kg of garden soil and 74 kg of white stone dust. It is Wyburn's largest piece to date."

Source - "The 10m by 14m outdoor portrait of the NHS mastermind, was created on the moors of the highest village in Wales, Trefil, during the 70th anniversary week of the institution. Creator of the artwork Valleys-born artist and Britain’s Got Talent finalist, Nathan Wyburn, made the piece of art entirely out of local materials, including 374kg of garden soil and 74kg of white stone dust. It took eight and a half hours for Nathan to complete the portrait and it is his largest creation to date.

I was originally going to go through edit-by-edit, but it ended up being easier just to trim. I doubt I've caught everything, and will review again before closing this bit of the CCI.

To be clear, I've no issue with there being an article, I just think there are issues with it. I appreciate editors have put considerable effort into it, and hope the above comments are helpful, both in identifying why/what I have trimmed, and how the article might be improved. KJP1 (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

With 20% of the article gone, there less scope form copyvio. So that's a bonus. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

p.s. you mention the COI notice. Do you think that is a valid one? For a visual artists it's usually useful to be able to included images of their work. If the copyright holder is User:Mthowells200130 then it makes sense for him to upload his photos to Commons? Other editors can then add some of those images to the article as required? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Martin - Yep, I think the COI declaration they have done is fine. They clearly state they are a "personal friend and professionally linked". But, given that, they shouldn't be editing the article directly. They can upload images to Commons, and ask/suggest here that they be included, and they can make other suggestions here for improvements/updates. But they shouldn't be making the changes themselves, as they have been to date. KJP1 (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But I have no idea if they have any more. I'm sure we'll notice if they do. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi both, I've just seen this - I don't think I've added much copy to this article, but of course if I've written anything infringing on COI / unverifiable please kill it. Point noted about not editing directly, I apologise for not following that. I've taken a step back from Wiki (mainly because I don't have time or motivation, and because of risk infringing on COI) but photos (via Commons) will be my main contributions moving forward. Hope this helps in any way.

@KJP1 @Martinevans123 - Mthowells200130 (Matthew) | Talk | COI 12:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for clarifying. No one could really expect more from you. Thank you for the images loaded so far. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You must also be careful publishing images of his work as they are derivative pieces, Nathan doesn't credit anyone else but himself in his work, so that may be very problematic!, I noticed that he is and has been selling prints of his work, by doing this, Nathan is breaking copyright law, this isn't a dig at all, but be very careful publishing a photograph of a piece of art based on another photograph owned by another artist/photographer. Hogyncymru (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the long list of namedropping from the intro - as is suggested above, none of these are supported by citations or text in the body of the article. There's no evidence any of these artworks were commissioned by the celebrities. Sionk (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You don't see Tom Jones or Shirley Bassey in the body of the article? I'm not too sure about the description of "variety act artist" and how that's supported in the body of the article. Certainly he was a finalist on Britain's Got Talent, but I think he's moved on from that. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Using Nathan's own social media platforms to use in the references

You cannot use content that are uploaded by the person in the article as a means of referencing; Nathan's own Facebook/youtube channels/pages are not reliable and could be subject to manipulation, editors should always use sources directly from news articles or/and websites to show transparency and clarity, find better sources!. Hogyncymru (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Questionable use of the words 'Celebrity endorsement'

I don't feel the inclusion of which celebrity he's met, spoken or interacted with makes any sense, if anything, it portrays an article that wishes to brag about his encounters. None of these people commissioned him and when comparing this article with another current Welsh artist, say Dan Llywelyn Hall, you can see how different Nathan's article is written. When a celebrity says 'great work', it doesn't equate to a celebrity endorsement. Hogyncymru (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Derivative work and copyright issues

Derivative work means that a piece of art has been created from an existing piece that is often copyrighted, in order to sell derivative art or make money as a consequence of a derivative work, you'll first need permission from the content creator, it seems most of Nathan's work is based off of other people's photography and by looking through his social medias, he never credits the photographers, if any of his work is used on wikipedia/wikimedia we should be aware of this and question the legality of such content. Hogyncymru (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)