Talk:2023 AFL Women's Grand Final

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.afl.com.au/aflw/news/1066784/aria-award-winning-artist-g-flip-to-perform-in-the-2023-telstra-pre-game-entertainment http://theguardian.com/sport/live/2023/dec/03/aflw-2023-grand-final-north-melbourne-vs-brisbane-live-updates-kangaroos-lions-squads-scores-results-kick-off-time-ikon-park-victoria http://afl.com.au/aflw/news/1068653/what-time-does-the-2023-nab-aflw-grand-final-start-all-you-need-to-know-about-north-melbourne-v-brisbane-lions. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit war regarding disputed copyright violation
While reviewing the article I performed a copyright check via Earwig's Copyvio Detector. From my point of view the copyvio report showed copyright problems so I removed the text.

This was later disputed by @Hawkeye7 who reinstated the text (regarding the best on ground info) in this edit.

Here is the copyvio report from when Hawkeye7 reinstated the text– refer to the best on ground section.

Should this text remain in the article or be removed due to copyright issues?

(I have listed this discussion @ Copyright problems/2023 December 5) ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not edit warring over this but 19.4%? Doesn't look like much of a copyright violation. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, edit war was probably the wrong term, perhaps a content dispute is a better way to put it. Irregardless of the 19.4% rating which factors in the entire article which for the most part is clean, if you compare the best-on-ground medal paragraph to the source text, there are stark similarities which constitutes at best Closeparaphrasing, and at worst, a Copyvio. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:LIMITED how would you paraphrase the factual information that particular individuals were part of a panel that awarded the best-on-ground medal, and that the recently retired presenter of that medal has previously won the medal? Storm machine (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed "two-time" to "dual". This lowers Earwing to 17.4%. It won't go much lower. Hawkeye7   (discuss)   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Storm machine: I disagree that WP:LIMITED is the case here, there are plenty of ways that this can be rephrased. Especially the first part that says . ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)