Jump to content

Talk:Mark of the Year

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured listMark of the Year is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 19, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 11, 2008Featured list candidateNot promoted
November 12, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 2, 2008Featured list candidatePromoted
April 11, 2016Featured list removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured list

Secondary source?

[edit]

All the other years have press sources showing who won mark of the year. 2007 only has an online link to afl.com which "might" go dead.

Surely, somebody discussed this in the press???????? Garrie 05:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too commercial

[edit]

Way too many mentions of the major sponsor for my liking. One or two, max, for my taste. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sponsor is only mentioned 3 times, and only in the prose. What's the problem here specifically? --Flewis(talk) 14:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct title?

[edit]

What is the correct title of the award? Is it Mark Of the Year, AFL Mark Of the Year, Austrailian Football League Mark Of the Year, or something else? Whatever it is, it's what should be in bold in the first line and it should be the name of the article, with other variants and different cases (e.g. "of" instead of "Of" or vice-versa) created as redirects. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Officially it's known as The Toyota AFL Mark of the Year [1], however, as the competition is colloquially used and known as the Mark of the Year - that title would be considered the correct one according to wikipedia's naming conventions--Flewis(talk) 23:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article reads like crap

[edit]

Wording like "Run within the paradigm of Australian Rules Football" is ridiculous. Needs to more clearly explain what it is about. --Rulesfan (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAFL, criterion #1. 'Nuff said --Flewis(talk) 15:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Normally, the use of "reference section"-style references vs. in-line external-links should be consistent across an article. Not doing so would normally be a hard block for featured-content status. However, I've seen what it was like before and it's clear that this is a case where we can and should ignore all rules to make the article more readable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC) see below davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - using references instead of external links was redundant and superfluous. WP:IAR --Flewis(talk) 11:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
External links do not go in the body of an article for a reason. Either remove the links entirely, which is probably correct, or leave them as references. It makes no sense at all to make them external links! They relate to individual items not the article itself. 2005 (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not really a discussion if the videos are external links or if they are references, it's a discussion of whether they should be in reflist format or in Wikipedia:Embedded citations format. However, reading that and Wikipedia:Citing sources I'm rethinking my statement earlier about ignoring all rules - the fact that links can go stale and that more information is needed for link-recovery is a very good reason to avoid these, particularly in feature content. I'll have to think on this.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC) see below davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is why they should not be external links (as they were briefly before I reverted them). The way they were, they did not meet the criteria of embedded citations (no listing in the references section). So, they for sure should not be like they were changed to. On the more appropriate point, from a disinterested passerby, that embedded citation page looks almost abandoned. Hardly anybody does it that way anymore. I'd suggest there is no reason not to use the reflist style... but then I'd also suggest most sports youtube links are likely copyvio and policy requires that they be removed entirely. 2005 (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For articles, if these videos are uses as source material, they should be referenced as either reflist- or embedded-link references. If they are not being used as source material, but rather as additional material, they should be spun off into an external links section. However, this is a list, and that format breaks the continuity of being a list, so ignoring guidelines for the good of the aricle may be appropriate, but we should discuss it first.see alternative solution with multiple reference sections below davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC) updated davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any external links should only directly relate to the subject of the article, Mark of the Year. They should never be links to sports plays themselves. 2005 (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, that all of the videos listed do in fact, directly pertain to the subject. However as I commented at the FLC - if the Youtube links violate some wiki guideline, and/or are considered detrimental to the article, then I would endorse their removal. That being said, I suggest following up on Ruhrfisch's proposal of expert-help [2], before attempting anything brash. --Flewis(talk) 14:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously none of them do. For a video to directly pertain to the subject of the article, a video would have to be about the Mark of the Year... what it is, its history etc. Similarly the article on the baseball World Series could possibly have an external link discussing the history of the World Series, however a video of the teams who played in the 1964 World Series would not be appropriate. These videos in this article relate to specific items, and (if anything) are relevant to that specific item, and therefore are references for that. Youtube videos are very, very seldom appropriate, and virtually never for sports events since they violate the Wikipedia's copywrite policy. In any case though, they would never be external links. Sources is the only option. 2005 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible solution: reflist|group=
<ref group="H">reference url and description</ref>
plus a section at the bottom called
==Highlight Films==
{{reflist|group="H"}}
should do the trick.
This meets the Featured Content guidelines without cluttering up the rest of the references. By the way, I checked other featured lists and most use reflist even though it results in a highly cluttered references section. Some featured lists such as Amateur radio frequency bands in India use multiple reference sections, which helps a lot in cases like this. I think we should wait for a net +3 and 60% endorsement before making this change. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

mddawson1, a video uploader on Youtube for at least one of these videos, claims

Please note in regards to videos from ABC TV: "[The ABC wishes] to get our content out there on as many platforms as possible, run by as many different operators as possible." Courtney Gibson, head of arts, entertainment and comedy at ABC TV.

See also here and here. Anyone know how to get this officially confirmed, or possibly get ABC to make some sort of ruling on this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube link you provided acknowledges that these are coyrighted. Please feel free to contact the ABC, but until you have official word from them (and not a copyvio YouTube uploader's claims), these are copyvios and have to go. 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 ><>°° 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved - See here --Flewis(talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History Dispute

[edit]

This award does not exist prior to 2001.

See AFL Record Season Guides e.g. 2008 page 509: "Since 2001, the AFL has made weekly nominations for the official version of the Mark of the Year and the winner has been announced at the end of the season."

RossRSmith (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it wasn't the AFL before 1998. Here[3] is an account back to 1998. Mkmetalhead (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AFL has existed in spirit, if not in name since 1987. As noted above, this MOTY competition has existed officially only since 2001. The names and dates 1970 to 2000 should be removed because they are not winners of an official AFL award.

RossRSmith (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If my knowledge is accurate, MOTY awards prior to being an official AFL award was solely a Channel 7 award. Winners of the Channel 7 MOTY certainly warrant discussion in this article (they were universally recognised in an unofficial capacity by the football community as MOTY, and are a rich part of the history of the award), but clearly there is a need to clarify this discrepancy in better detail. Aspirex (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rather than stripping the list of so many entries, I'd be quite happy with that resolution. RossRSmith (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral language

[edit]

I was very surprised to see this article was a featured list, considering the flowery, non-neutral language: "huge screamer", "spectacular mark", etc. Some of the notes have quotations, but many have refer to "speckys" without a reference. StAnselm (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark of the Year. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent tense

[edit]

Entries on this list vary regarding the tense. I assume it should be past tense ("jumped"), but a few entries are in the present tense. Lots of the descriptions need to be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone, too. StAnselm (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the tense myself; the unencyclopedic tone (e.g. "basically sitting in Magpie Gary Pert's arms") still needs to be fixed, though. StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mark of the Year. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mark of the Year. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Mark of the Year. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFL.com.au's list is WP:CITOGENESIS

[edit]

This has come up a couple of times and will no doubt come up again, so I'll leave a note here for future editors. AFL.com.au has a list of Mark of the Year winners which is very tempting to use as a reference. Unfortunately, it's been copied off an old revision of this very list, probably this one given the listed date. They have the same inaccuracies (e.g. Baker listed instead of Moore in 1978), the same failure to distinguish between Seven and ABC versions, and if you look at this version of the list you'll see whoever copied it over did such an awful job they accidentally left "Tony Modra^" and "Michael Mitchell#" in the list verbatim, which make no sense without the Wikipedia list's key.

In fact, there are quite a few ostensibly independent lists around the internet that are merely inaccurate copies of some older revision of this page. As far as I can tell, there is no extant, accurate "master list" of either of the pre-2001 awards. – Teratix ₵ 15:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I suppose while I'm leaving notes for future editors I do want to note for posterity that a lot of the inaccuracies can be traced back to a flailing attempt to push the list through at FLC back in 2008 – it was challenged on sourcing and rather than concede the point, the nominator opted to add this offline reference. If you track down a copy, you can see it does not at all support their claims (it does contain pictures of the marks, but no indications they were ever judged Mark of the Year, and indeed some were definitely not!) It really is quite disappointing when editors care more about getting the shiny star than getting the facts right. Anyway, bit of a moot point since the nominator hasn't edited in 15 years, but sometimes I despair when I think about how much of Wikipedia must be like this. – Teratix ₵ 15:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_of_the_Year&oldid=1247505705"