Entertainment desk
< March 1	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 2

Sheffield Rules

In 1861 rouges were introduced into the code. The idea was borrowed from Eton and involved a 4 yards (3.7 m) goal (as opposed to 8 yards (7.3 m) used previously). There were also rouge flags placed an additional 4 yards (3.7 m) each side of the goal. If the ball was kicked between the rouge flags and subsequently touched down the team scored a rouge.

The third word is linked to Rouge (football), a seemingly unrelated concept in Canadian football that is scored if the other team fails to return certain kicks. Do I guess rightly that Sheffield's rouge was basically a way of semi-scoring shots on goal that were near misses? And what does touched down mean? The other uses of "touch" in the article seem to link it to the status of being out of bounds (A ball in touch is dead, consequently the side that touches it down must bring it to the edge of the touch and throw it straight out from touch), but gravity guarantees that a ball going between the rouge flags will eventually land in the out-of-bounds area, so I'm missing something. Nyttend (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This "rouge" seems to be like a behind (Australian rules football)#Scoring. I agree that the Canadian football concept is irrelevant and should not be linked to, except perhaps to say that it is nothing like it. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Eton’s ‘rouge’, whereby “when a player has kicked the ball beyond the opponents’ goal line, whoever first touches the ball when it is on the ground with his hand may have a free kick bringing the ball straight out from the goal line.” Effectively, this was exactly the same thing as the ‘try at goal’ in rugby'. Laying down the laws: The Football Association is born Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if you read a bit further in our article, you come to Single (football)#Other football codes which specifically mentions the "rouge" in the Sheffield Code. I have added a brief note about the early FA. Alansplodge (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vilook.com

Looking for something stupid I stumbled across a search result at vilook.com and found a site which seems to have a large amount of searchable video content, delivering dozens of videos for fairly specific keywords. It claims millions of views for some of its videos on the front page. But I never heard of it before, see nothing on Wikipedia, nothing on news aggregators, there's a (possibly spam) report here claiming no real readership or value -- which doesn't mean anything, except it came up above any other result. Archive.org indicates it has been going since 2016. [1] What I'm trying to figure out is whether it is a serious competitor to YouTube and whether we ought to have an article about it, among other things. Wnt (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google News search for vilook and vilook.com and found nothing; that doesn't bode too well. Their Facebook group has... 992 members. Straight Googling doesn't even get you their homepage - the FB page is the top result. Wnt, you've been on WP long enough to know how this works - even if this isn't by some reason a fake-out, how were you going to write an article with no sources? Matt Deres (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially suspicious that Google was hiding hits because they compete with YouTube. The site actually has good content, like [2]. But there's actually a simpler explanation: it appears the site somehow mirrors or reroutes YouTube traffic (like [3] - the same video, but with ads), despite having a very different appearance. Because the site has been up at its domain for three years, whatever it is doing must use a genuine legal loophole for whatever country it's based in. Still mystified why this hasn't made some kind of news. Wnt (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a mistake to assume something is legal just because it's still up. For example, if I visit Daily Motion I can find episodes or many different less primetime series. E.g. UK, Australian and NZ soap operas. Lower end reality and similar shows (e.g. Escaping Polygamy, Catfish). Many of these with very little effort I mean just a search for "series name" and maybe "date" or episode number. While these can disappear at random times, it's also quite common to find some which have been up for years. Probably even some more primetime series if I knew the right keywords although these tend to disappear faster. (Although probably the older it gets the less likely it is to disappear.) I mean heck, even on Youtube, I can trivially find shows like Border Patrol for most anglophone countries which have one. Again while these can disappear, you can often find some which are years old. Even shows like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver often seem to exist from unofficial sources, perhaps with part of the video cut off or flipped and the speed adjusted etc, at least for a short time. Again simple title searches.

It's fairly unlikely these exist because of some legal loophole, instead they exist because the rights holders haven't gone through the effort to find them all since it's simply not worth it to them, especially for a video getting a few hundred or at most thousand views over years. (Admittedly the Border stuff can get hundreds of thousands of views.) In some cases, maybe the rights holders are even fine with it although I suspect that's rare. (More likely it's only the creators or some members of the team and production company or whoever's primarily funding it would prefer they don't exist.)

Possibly in the Daily Motion case their content ID etc systems are a lot less robust than Youtube too, I don't know. The legal cases make me think it's probably a factor. (Of course Dailymotion is likely between a rock and a hard place here. I suspect like Youtube before they became what they are now, a big part of their revenue probably comes from ads served to people watching copyright content distributed without the right's holder permission. Why else would you go to Dailymotion rather than Youtube? Well okay, Youtube was doing it before they really cared about making money.)

To give a completely different example, Youtube's API has I believe forbidden any sort of PVR or offline watching, background playback of music and of course skipping ads for a long time. But it was only after Youtube Red came around that they really started to crack down on apps doing the first two. (The last one probably always.) And this was basically their own store (Play store) so it's not like there was any actual barrier. I mean even for the App Store, it's fairly unlikely it was very hard for them. Yet even after they cracked down, at least as of a few years ago it wasn't that hard to find apps which still broke the rules.

But having said all that, this isn't legal advice etc but I'm not certain that site is doing anything wrong. It looks to me like they're just embedding stuff from Youtube, the same that probably millions of other sites do. (E.g. [4] [5] yes not the best samples, but embedded Youtube videos are the sort of thing you see all the time but can't easily find when you're looking for examples.) And which Youtube even tells you how to do for each video (well uploaders can forbid embedding) e.g. on [6] click share and then embed will give me this

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oGwHtl4yQDg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

along with links to work out what I can do with it. So the embedding is probably fine. The other stuff is probably just taken via the Youtube API so is likewise probably fine. The ad thing is not something the site is directly responsible for. It's Youtube's choice for whatever reason [7], probably because they don't trust the site. (They don't want ads for Tiki branded Tiki torches appearing on white supremacy sites since Tiki probably won't be very happy.)

Possibly just mirroring Youtube by listing all their videos and embedding them on your site is a violation of some part of their TOS, I don't really know. Getting back to my first point, it's not surprising they don't care for a site who's Facebook page has under 3000 likes. Note that whatever video you're referring to may have 3 million views, and some of them may come from various embedded instances of it, but it's unlikely many of them come from vilook.

New information for this: Domain name = vilook.com Registrar URL = http://www.isimtescil.net Secretary = FBS Inc

I also suspect a bit of this domain. After testing, I saw that he was creating redirects for "normal" ads, up to "Explicit Content."Care must be taken. I discovered this domain after searching my own nickname

.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]