Template talk:Unfit
Add topic(Redirected from Template talk:Unfit/doc)
Latest comment: 11 months ago by IgelRM in topic Unfit criteria
Unfit criteria
[edit]@GreenC; Do the references to the website gameshub.com fit the criteria for this Unfit template (in "defaced to show spam")? The website's publisher Creative Hubs sold it to an unnamed organization, which appear to use it to spam online gambling links among other changes. The previous articles are still viewable with the added "Player-Favourite Gambling Guides". Now I am wondering if this is relevant enough to add the Unfit template or change to archived links. Regards IgelRM (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- IgelRM, that's a WP:JUDI. You can add the domain to the list, all of the links will get changed to usurped status via bot. -- GreenC 02:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have added it to the list. I assume your short reply pointing to "WP:JUDI" is saying this should be a usurp request; but like I said above, the previous articles are still viewable and it's not "faking its true identity". It says "GamesHub Inc, United Arab Emirates" instead of "Arts Hub Australia Pty Ltd", although this might be deliberately in small-print for SEO purposes. I think Unfit is more fitting because it was a reliable source, which became a spam-related "problem for Wikipedia". IgelRM (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- IgelRM: I should have looked at the site. Sorry can you provide some example URLs you think are unfit/usurped? Not sure I understand the problem. -- GreenC 02:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, gameshub.com is cited on 78 articles. For example on InZOI; if you view the cited article, a paragraph with "Looking for the best casinos or betting sites?" was inserted at the bottom by above mentioned organization (Compare with the archived version here). Clicking the links in the paragraph, opens an "Online Casinos" page which links websites like "Coin Casino".
- This looks like an unmarked advertorial, therefore perhaps a problem (this among other things gives doubts if the articles published by this organization are reliable). I am thinking in the context of readers expecting the previous reliable source by publisher Arts Hub Australia Pty Ltd now being funneled into an unfit website.
- Basically the question is whether it is relevant if the original text is still viewable in some form for the Unfit template. IgelRM (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- I see. Question: is the new site actively adding new content, or recycling essays from the old site as a coat rack to spam? If they are creating new content, it's a case of a site doing subtle advertising of vendors we don't like. In which case, not sure what to do. This is not uncommon, might need a RSN discussion. But if they are only usurping the domain and content for the purpose of spamming ie. they are not original content creators, that would be unambiguous site usurpation. The amount of advertising is limited and at the bottom of the page so I am hesitant to wipe out the entire domain unless we are sure it's usurpation vs. ill-advised advertising by a legit content creator (the new owners). -- GreenC 21:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- My impression was that they did not intent to write new articles; the May 2025 press release of the publisher says:
- "Separately, the company has sold its GamesHub.com brand, which had been a dedicated outlet for video games content. Under its new ownership, it will belong to an organisation that is not a digital media publisher, so Creative Hubs Group expects the site will not compete with ScreenHub.com.au. From today, the award-winning editorial team from GamesHub.com will be part of the ScreenHub.com.au team."
- But looking at the website now, it appears to contradict the publisher's non-compete expectations. They have similar gaming articles as ScreenHub.com.au, most from Cedric Gossling and Peter Morgan. They might have "reused" in the past, but appear to currently add new content to answer your question. However, I'm not sure if we understand each other.
- I was only arguing about the Unfit template which I think doesn't need usurpation; this is why I am asking on this talk page specifically. From my understanding, we don't need to wipe out the domain but add the Unfit to the previous article references on WP. So I think to answer my own question; yes, it is relevant that the original text is still viewable. Before discussing on RSN, would that be possible with this template? IgelRM (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- Unfit is for picking individual bad apples from a truck of good apples. Usurpation is for tossing the entire truckload. I checked this article published Sept 1 2025, it looks like a good apple. It contains new creative content, no gambling adverts. This suggests usurpation is not the right tool, but unfit could be. But, I have no way to automate the addition of unfit templates because it is a judgement which URLs are unfit. -- GreenC 01:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- I have removed the domain from WP:JUDI again. As their are only 78 articles, I will manually check with which references the Unfit template would make sense. Thanks. IgelRM (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Unfit is for picking individual bad apples from a truck of good apples. Usurpation is for tossing the entire truckload. I checked this article published Sept 1 2025, it looks like a good apple. It contains new creative content, no gambling adverts. This suggests usurpation is not the right tool, but unfit could be. But, I have no way to automate the addition of unfit templates because it is a judgement which URLs are unfit. -- GreenC 01:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- I see. Question: is the new site actively adding new content, or recycling essays from the old site as a coat rack to spam? If they are creating new content, it's a case of a site doing subtle advertising of vendors we don't like. In which case, not sure what to do. This is not uncommon, might need a RSN discussion. But if they are only usurping the domain and content for the purpose of spamming ie. they are not original content creators, that would be unambiguous site usurpation. The amount of advertising is limited and at the bottom of the page so I am hesitant to wipe out the entire domain unless we are sure it's usurpation vs. ill-advised advertising by a legit content creator (the new owners). -- GreenC 21:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- IgelRM: I should have looked at the site. Sorry can you provide some example URLs you think are unfit/usurped? Not sure I understand the problem. -- GreenC 02:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have added it to the list. I assume your short reply pointing to "WP:JUDI" is saying this should be a usurp request; but like I said above, the previous articles are still viewable and it's not "faking its true identity". It says "GamesHub Inc, United Arab Emirates" instead of "Arts Hub Australia Pty Ltd", although this might be deliberately in small-print for SEO purposes. I think Unfit is more fitting because it was a reliable source, which became a spam-related "problem for Wikipedia". IgelRM (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)