Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mark of the Year

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [1].

Mark of the Year[edit]

previous FLC (20:26, 11 October 2008)
Comprehensive, well written, meets FL criteria; after two extensive peer-reviews and a failed FLC, this article is once more, ready to be a FL candidate. One of the main issues that other editors encountered with this article was that it was hard for those unfamiliar with Australian rules football to understand the jargon and football-related concepts. In light of this, I've re-written this article from the standpoint of someone who is encountering the topic for the first time. Once again, if there are any minor issues remaining, I'd be willing to work on them, until the article reaches FL status. --Flewis(talk) 13:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there are no actual book sources, so i would expect sources do exist for the missing data, but require a trip to the library. Hence i would oppose at this time, at least until print sources have been checked. I don't see how it is possible for newspapers of the time not to have these results, so this fails to be comprehensive. (Also, is Youtube a reliable source for these stats? What's to stop someone faking an official looking video on there?).Yobmod (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issue fixed - A reference, namely this one was found. --Flewis(talk) 05:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Youtube is not being used as a source of information, it is only linked so as to present visual evidence. This issue has already been discussed in the previous FLC and Peer reviews. --Flewis(talk) 07:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are the Youtube videos not copywrite breaches by Youtube, which should therefore not be used as links? or are the PD for some reason?Yobmod (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The usability of youtube videos has been discussed here. Copyright has been discussed here.--Flewis(talk) 00:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copywrite discusion did not show that these are not illegal copywrite violations. You wrote:"However I failed to find an exact copyright pertaining to synthesis of sport broadcasts". Until that is known for certain i'm sure this wouldn't fly with featured articles and shouldn't with featured lists.Yobmod (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the links to the youtube videos are detrimental to the article/block to FL, then I see no reason not to remove them. I personally believe that the reader will want to see the mark, not just read about it. Linking directly to the video, is simply a convenience. Wikipedia is not paper after all, and a video link certainly sets this article apart, presenting both a textual and visual encyclopedia experience. On the other hand, copyright is a very serious issue, and Youtube is directly responsible for any copyright videos appearing on the site. As a rule of thumb, copyrighted material is either promptly removed from the site, or displayed with advertising. If the video has not been removed, we can safely assume that it is presented in a legal fashion. The wikimedia foundation cannot be held liable for what appears on youtube, so we can safely assume that a harmless link will not incur any legal action. --Flewis(talk) 14:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It's not about what the reader wants, it's about breaking the law, and getting Wikipedia closed down. Anyone else noticed that the German courts have shut down wikipedia.de for something that should never have been in an article according to policy? I'm not a copywrite expert, so if an experienced user in this area can say we are not breaking the law, then that's fine. But at the moment, we have no indication at all. Official policy = If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. Yobmod (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the videos are now gone, i look over some other parts, and it looks nearly there. Some (one?) of the colour-code symbols are missing,m and i agree with those below that the descriptions of the win need to be sourced to someone. I'll go for neutral, as there still seems a lot of comments from others that need atending.Yobmod (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This article is much improved over its first FL review, but there are 2 major issues and some minor ones:

  • Several items in the list that are very important, like round and location, are missing. I've flagged SOME of these with HTML comments. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
  • Comments in the list which are not sourced may be perceived as WP:Original Research. If it's obvious from inspection of the video then it will probably be okay but if it's editorializing or even looks like it, or it contains facts not visible in a publicity photo, it should be sourced. 1975 is an example of one that must be sourced. Ideally, they all would be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
    • Mostly done - there are a few other un-sourced descriptions, but the sources for them shouldn't be hard to find. --Flewis(talk) 12:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The normal wikipedia rules of "only link the first instance" aren't done but they may not apply. However, the principle author should adopt a convention of when to link the same word or name more than once and document it on the talk page. If it makes sense to do so, this should be the wiki "first mention gets a link" rule. Because of the nature of the tables, I'm okay with a link in the first instance in each table, plus the first use in the article if different. I'm also okay with a link for every use in the tables, but try to avoid that if possible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
    • To someone unfamiliar with Australian Rules football jargon, or to someone skimping through the article, an overlink when relevant to the context is helpful and necessary. Otherwise it may be best to WP:IAR? --Flewis(talk) 15:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of single-quotes, double-quotes, italics, and bold needs to be standardized and documented on the talk page. The use of "fancy quotes" or "angled quotes" or "curley quotes" should be avoided. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
    • I don't understand. --Flewis(talk) 12:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See this edit. "Fancy" quote characters like ‘ and ’ and “ and ” (note: these characters may LOOK the same as normal quotes but check the wiki-source to see the difference) should be avoided except when necessary as they look awkward on some older platforms. Use ' and " instead. Sometimes, italics or bold is better than putting a word in quotes, I just played with the text and decided which one felt right and most consistent with the rest of Wikipedia when I made that edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't seem find any instances of this type of formatting within the article. Could you please double check if the issue has been resolved? --Flewis(talk) 12:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's been taken care of. But if and when new material is added by the editor who put them in in the first place, care should be taken not to introduce these again. Some word- and text-processors turn quotes into curly-quotes automatically, this feature should be turned off when preparing articles for Wikipedia.
  • Is there a reason the links to videos are emphasized/bolded? Is there a reason it is in citation format rather than [http://www.url.goes.here description] inline format? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
    • I wasn't entirely sure exactly how the video column had to be presented (a link to a MOS guideline regarding this issue would be great). Otherwise, the youtube videos were converted into citations for some reason here--Flewis(talk) 07:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup and some minor formatting changes. Please make sure none of my work introduced problems.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC) }}[reply]

Resolved comments from Ruhrfisch (talk)

Comments from Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) Comments by Ruhrfisch: I peer reviewed this and was asked to look at the article for FLC. I do not normally write sport articles, do not follow or totally understand Australian Rules Football, and it has been some time since I last weighed in on an FLC. I reread the article, reread WP:WIAFL, and reread the pertinent parts of WP:MOS. I do not think this currently meets FL criteria, but also imagine the changes needed are relatively easy.

  • Per the MOS, please give English units (feet or yards) as well as metric (metres). The {{convert}} template may help here.
  • I think the article is seriously overlinked - see WP:OVERLINK. For example, Australian Football League is linked four times in the article, and fairly common terms like Autralia and kick and ball are also linked. Note I am not specifically objecting to overlinks in the sortable table.
    • Most unnecessary links have been removed. Most of the links left within the prose are content-specific. E.g. ball --Flewis(talk) 04:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:IMAGE, Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other. but the image of the football and 2008 Mark of the Year Image sandwich the text.
  • One the criteria at WP:WIAFL is comprehensiveness: Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical .... However, I am confused by the "Round. Ground" column in the list - it gives the game (match) in every case (so should the column header be "Game. Round. Ground"?) but it does not give the round every time. For example,current ref 38 says the 1998 Mark was in Round 18, but this information is not given in article.
    • Done--Flewis(talk) 05:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, but 1973 and 1978 still need a ground listed. I would also suggest changing the column header to "Teams, Round, Ground" or "Match, Round, Ground" or "Game, Round, Ground". I wnt through and made this column consistent - commas between all entries, "vs" instead of "v" or "vs." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that's the last of them - Also I changed "Round, Ground" to "Match, Round, Ground"--Flewis(talk) 10:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, I struck but have one last question. For 1972 it says Halfback Peter Knights throws screamer against Collingwood.[3] - since this is about catching the ball, should the verb really be "throws"? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking at ref 38 and the information it is used for as a citation, I am not sure the description of the Mark matches the ref cited (this may be my ignorance of AFL terminology). As one example, the 2000 description is A chest mark over a pack in typical Tony Modra fashion.[38] while ref 38 says DETAILS: From within a pack, Tony Modra rose on the back of his opponent to yet again take a spectacular and memorable mark, this time from the kick by team mate Ashley Prescott. [3]. Note it does not say it was a "chest mark" and the "typical Tony Modra fashion" seems a bit of a stretch. Is this WP:OR?
    • No, the facts weren't wrong, however without a source, the description could be considered borderline OR. I've paraphrased the info from within the source, and replaced the previous commentary.--Flewis(talk) 05:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks - the descriptions really need to be made consistent. For example is it 'Overhead mark' (single quotes, 1970) or Overhead mark (no quotes, 1974) or why is only the 1976 Overhead mark linked (either link the first one, or link them all). Similarly is it 'screamer' (single quotes, 1972) or screamer (linked, 1974) or screamer (italics, 1976)? The names of the winners are also inconsistent in the descriptions - some are just last name, others are first and last name. I also note that all the descriptions end with a period / full stop, but should the fragments that are not full sentences end this way? Or is this an FL / MOS criterion somehow? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I cleaned up and added info to some of the "problematic" descriptions. I've also gone ahead and placed full-stops at the end of each of the descriptions, and fixed the linking issue. FL criteria does not specify exactly what the table must include, so there's some leeway there for personal opinions. I don't think naming inconsistencies within the descriptions is a problem though. Otherwise, I think I can basically say done in regards to these issues. --Flewis(talk) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Struck. I made a few more cleanup edits - as always please revert / fix if I introduced any errors Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I raised this issue at the peer review and will raise it again here. I do not think that most or perhaps all of the many YouTube links are justified. There is no clear indication that I can see that they are posted by the copyright holder. Despite the claims made above, they are linked as inline citations, not given in the External links section. However, even if they were External links, WP:EL says under Restrictions on linking: For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: 1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. If they are references (which is how I see them), then you still should not link to a copyright violation. Perhaps we should find a copyright expert and ask them.
    • I mentioned this previously during a discussion with Yobmod at the top of this page, along with the respective PR's and previous FLC. I reiterate once more - If the video is currently on display on youtube, either:
    1. It's there with consent from the copyright holder
    2. The video has an expired copyright due to an Australian TV sporting law
    3. The video is a Copyvio that has not yet been discovered by the Copyright holder.
If this will be a block to FLC, then by all means, remove the videos. The only reason they're within the article, is to provide a direct link which will visually aid the prospective reader. It's your call. --Flewis(talk) 05:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify which links / videos are in which category - obviously types 1 and 2 are OK and type 3 links need to be removed. Type 2 seems easiest if it is date based - all videos older than a certain year would presumably be allowed. I also note that there are about 2650 hits in the official AFL website for "Mark of the Year" on Google, some of which are videos, which might be helpful. See here Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the official site stores video clips, other than within the official Mark of the Year portal - that only shows the latest winners. I also couldn't tell you which videos fall into which categories. I guess the only way to find out, is to remove any Youtube deadlinks (which would mean that the video was removed due to copyright infringement.) YT, like wikipedia is created on user-generated content, so it would be extremely difficult to determine each and every video's copyright status. --Flewis(talk) 11:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a copyright expert. If you want, we can try to get an expert opinion by asking somewhere. I do not know anything about Australian copyright, but what you said about expired copyright made me think that if it were a 10 or 20 year limit, then those video clips would be easiest to identify. Similarly if the official AFL website (or the original television broadcaster's website - the ABC?) have a clip, then that is OK to link to. Unlike criminal trials (innocent until proven guilty), I think the standard here must be assume videos on YouTube are a copyright violation unless you can prove otherwise. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Afl.com.au and the respective Australian broadcasters don't have the videos listed within their sites. So, should I remove the links, or keep them? - or would you rather have an expert review the situation? It's your call. --Flewis(talk) 13:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to ask an expert since I know nothing about Australian copyright law. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Video Clips - how to best reference the video clips is under discussion. Until that discussion is resolved this article should not be promoted. However, it should not be failed either as long as discussion is happening. This is a case where the "standard" way of doing things creates an unnecessarily long list.[reply]

I have asked for advice on the copyright status of these clips here. If they are copyvio, they can not be in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we are talking about the same clips. It's my understanding that linked-to material can be copyrighted and does not have to be fair-use, it only has to be relevant. Since this is a list class article, each row in the list can have things in it, including photo- or video-links, related to that year's Mark. If this were only article about the award itself, then at most 1 or 2 such links would be appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree there is no restriction on linking to copyrighted material, there is a prohibition against linking to material that is on the web as a copyright violation. Please see Yobmod's comment and mine above. I have asked others better versed in copyright issues than I to weigh in here, let's see what they say. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I heard from User:Ealdgyth on this. Please see under WP:C, specifically WP:LINKVIO, where the relevant text is ... if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. ... I see no indication that the copyright holders (AFL and/or broadcasters) posted these videos. Unless there is some clear Australian law that copyright on videos expires after a certain number of years that would affect the videos linked in this article, all of the links to YouTube should go. If the AFL or broadcasters have links to the Marks, then they could be linked. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done - After much discussion I've went ahead and removed all the Youtube video links [4]. It's evident that the majority of them have an unclear copyright status (On a side note Goal of the Year (Australia) has a similar problem), and would therefore risk violating WP:LINKVIO. Some videos previously linked within the article have been removed as copyvios by youtube, and the remainder are still undiscovered by the copyright holders. Despite my personal opinions, I have no doubt, that the prospective reader won't have trouble finding footage of the marks via a simple google search. It is likely that this issue would've gone back and forth for quite some time, with the videos eventually being removed. This has just saved everyone the trouble of unnecessary hyperbole over the only real solution. --Flewis(talk) 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have changed from Comments to Support. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made quite a few copy-edits. I think the list is ready for FL status. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support all of my concerns have been addressed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two red-links in the transcluded template at the bottom. If anyone here knows enough about the subjects, please create stubs for Dreamtime at the 'G and VFL/AFL Captains. Newly-minted FL articles look so much better when they don't have any redlinks.

Done - See here and here --Flewis(talk) 04:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Mark_of_the_Year&oldid=1126721831"