User Talk: Spike 'em

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{NoACEMM}}
{{Archive basics
|archive = User talk:Spike 'em/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 1
}}
{{archive box |auto=yes|search=yes |bot= |age= |units=days |index= }}
In case you would like to discuss sockpuppeting, I have created a separate archive ↗ of discussions about them

Removing redirects

Hi, thought you might not have realised but there is no need to "fix" redirects, in fact the practice is discouraged. See WP:NOTBROKEN ↗ for more info. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
:I had seen that and wondered if I was overdoing it. However it does say:<blockquote>Reasons ''not'' to bypass redirects include: * Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form. * Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.</blockquote> both of which apply here. As background Lord's Cricket Ground ↗ was moved to Lord's ↗ as per WP:COMMONNAME ↗ with one of the supporting reasons being the number of <nowiki>Lord's ↗</nowiki> links. Rather than replace <code><nowiki>redirect ↗</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>redirect ↗</nowiki></code>, I'm trying to replace <code><nowiki>target ↗</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>target ↗</nowiki></code>. If this really is not appropriate, I'm very happy to stop. Spike 'em (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
::In the case of Lord's I don't really have a view, it just came up in a couple of articles on my watch list. There are cases where it can cause confusion, especially if the "Common Name" is in reality more ambiguous than Wikipedia likes to think it is, or where it introduces a change in the national variety of English ↗ used in an article. There are cases where using the redirect makes it much easier to find and fix misdirected incoming links. By the way - by changing from "Lord's Cricket Ground" to "Lord's" you'll invalidate any future count of incoming links should the common name be questioned in future!
::As I said, in this particular case I don't really have any problem with what you are doing, just wanted to make sure you were aware of the guidance. DuncanHill (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
::: Looking into things a bit more, I think MOS:NOPIPE ↗ is more relevant to what I'm aiming to achieve (I've not edited anything using a straight redirect). Thanks for the advice, nonetheless. Spike 'em (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for all the redirect work you're doing, Spike'em. We should have used Lord's from the beginning of CRIC with Lord's Cricket Ground as the redirect. I suppose the reason we didn't was because of the two earlier Lord's grounds and we wanted to disambiguate, but it was needless as they are commonly known now as the Old Ground and the Middle Ground. If you want any help, please let me know. All the best. Jack | talk page 14:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Name confusion about Greenfield International Stadium‬

Hi Spike 'em

This is the screenshot proof about the stadium name

thumb|Mail from Sports Hub Stadium Official ↗

I contacted the stadium official.
They said, "It was never Green Field stadium. It was only Green field project . Every one started calling it Green field stadium . Actual registered name is The Sports Hub, Trivandrum".
The page name in wikipedia about the stadium is also wrong.
The real name of the stadium is The Sports Hub.

You reverted my edit in wikipedia. but i was right. nothing wrong in my edit

:I fully accept that there is confusion on the name, but the policy on Wikipedia is to follow what the sources use as per WP:UCN ↗. Until the majority of sources call the ground The Sports Hub, then the article should stay where it is. They really need to tell this to the BCCI / Cricinfo / all the major Indian media sources. If they start referring to the ground as The Sports Hub, I would fully support moving the page / changing the text. I am trying to draft a section to put into the article to cover this. Spike 'em (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay Spike 'em, Then
I am providing the front view of the stadium and source link.
The actual name, Sports hub is written in front of the stadium.

thumb|Front view of The sports Hub ↗

Source link of the news:
The sports hub news ↗

: I accept all of this, but the point remains that Wikipedia goes by what is commonly used. I think this would be better off discussed at Talk:Greenfield International Stadium ↗, as there is more input from other users there. Spike 'em (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

OK Good. And at the broadcasting time, the commentators used the word The sports Hub, not Greenfield. also the toss time. You can watch the video from highlights of the match
:I have done so already as part of my research into this: I saw Sanjay Manjrekar welcoming everyone to The Sports Hub. Spike 'em (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

i am appreciating you. and i also wondered in your knowldedge about the stadium situated in my hometown

Histogram on Batting Average ↗

Hi, thanks for asking about this on my talk page ↗. Back in the day I used to work for CricInfo and had direct access to the stats database, so I downloaded the relevant stats and plotted them using Mathematica. I don't know how easy it is to get all of the necessary stats these days - i.e. if there's a bulk download available or if you'd have to somehow grab and compile them all manually. Sorry I cant be more help! --dmmaus (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Batting average ↗

Hi, in generating the list, I used the API to download a list of all articles that link to batting average ↗ (backlinks), since that is what the bot is operating on. It returned 15,376 articles. This is somewhat less than the 18,000 you found via AWB. Can you describe how you generated the list, was it by category search, or string search, using the dump? -- '''Green''''''C''' 14:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
:I just opened the last file I saved containing the articles that link to batting average, and it has 15,708 entries. I'll recheck my BOTREQ to see if I can explain where I might have got a different figure from. (If I do a search in AWB now, I get 15377). Spike 'em (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
:My initial BotReq says {{tq|I found just over 15k links to Batting average}} which I then split into 3k cricket and 12k baseball, so is it possible you've added 3 to 15 to get 18? Spike 'em (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

::Ah.. My fault sorry yes that's probably what happened. Good it sounds like our numbers are about in agreement. Thanks! -- '''Green''''''C''' 15:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

:Hi Spike'em, check out Ian Johnston (cricketer) ↗ he has a wikilink <nowiki>average ↗</nowiki>. How should the bot handle with a "#" .. leave as is? It could convert this particular case (and <nowiki>average ↗</nowiki> and leave other #links as-is, but maybe there is a preference to link to the main batting average ↗ page? There were 4 like this in the 50 trials. -- '''Green''''''C''' 16:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
::I've just added a message about this on the BOTREQ page, as I found similar in another pass through non-categorised articles! I'd convert those to links to the page for the sport. There seem to be some links to a non-existent section on the parent page too.Spike 'em (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Query.

"Position by round is deprecated"
What do you mean by that?
The position by round is shwon on other leauges — Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by 11cookeaw1 (talk • contribs ↗) 13:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC) 
:Talk:2018–19 Premier League#Positions by round ↗ and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 122#Positions by round table ↗. Other leagues may like it, but there seems to be consensus to not include on Premier League. Spike 'em (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

:Also Talk:2016–17_Premier_League#Positions_by_round ↗,Talk:2015–16_Premier_League#Position_by_round ↗,Talk:2011–12_Premier_League#Positions_by_round_revisited_(yes,_again!) ↗,Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_114#2017–18_Premier_League ↗ Spike 'em (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an '''exemption from IP blocking ↗'''. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks ↗ affecting your IP address ↗ when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption ↗ carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions ↗. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Spicy (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC) Spicy (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:TY Spike 'em (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

That Test mace business

There's a discussion over at WP:ANI#OCDD disruptive editing ↗ that you might end up getting dragged in to. Might be worth being aware of this. I've asked for a proper discussion at the template talk, but it looks like we might want to rivert things further back – been all sorts of undiscussed changes going on. I'm just not entirely sure what the best approach is. Oh, btw, Big(ish) Cup success? I don't know what that feels like, but I did think of you :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, I'll have a look at the ANI. I noticed some edits from them a few days ago, and got a bit worked up with the test mace nonsense! I haven't looked too much into the other edits to see how bad they are. Cup final was emotional! Spike 'em (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Appropriate links

Hi Spike 'em. Just want to further discuss regarding this edit here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Indies_cricket_team&diff=prev&oldid=1303472574 ↗. So you don't think this link is appropriate, and I don't think the current link is appropriate either. I also think this is inaccurate. It's probably best to start a discussion on Talk:West Indies cricket team ↗ considering that I don't think the current link is appropriate and inaccurate. Cheers Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

2024 Men's T20 World Cup merger

It has been proposed that the stage articles of the 2024 Men's T20 World Cup be merged back into it. So, I created a draft at User:Vestrian24Bio/2024 Men's T20 World Cup, would you mind trimming out any unnecessary stuff from it... Thanks! '''''Vestrian24Bio''''' 16:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Goalscorers

It's always been goalscorers on Tottenham season pages, never own goals added. And besides, that table looked bizarre with the own goals in it. Own goals are considered a negative statistic, and you certainly shouldn't have them added into a positive table. Govvy (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

:Why does it look weird? It explains how goals were scored and why the totals don't otherwise match the other tables on the page. Spike 'em (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
::Own goals should be recorded separately, or in a footer. When compiling goalscorer's it's always been the total scored by the club football players. If you look at a lot of material that isn't wikipedia, you should seen often when own goals are recorded. It's added as an additional footer or element separate from the total of goal scorers for the club. Even premierleague.com ↗, when you check who scored for Tottenham doesn't add the own goals in to that table, just the players. How about soccerway, see how they handle it, https://www.soccerway.com/england/premier-league/#/OEEq9Yvp/top-scorers/ ↗, Regards Govvy (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Just a word

{{ctop|title=BlackJack Part 1}}
First, I agree with Govvy about own goals. You should be careful about scoring them yourself, because I have returned with a clean slate, and your pathetic little jibes about my past activity are out of order. As for "starting (my) return", I actually began by doing something like 1,500 edits—the vast majority of them restoring good content that had been indiscriminately removed—''before'' I decided I should point out the importance of WP:PRESERVE ↗ to the responsible party.

That's it. The dog can go back to sleep now. '''Jack''' (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

:You are continuing your previous harrassment of other editors, so not much of a clean start, is it? Spike 'em (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
::I'll just ignore you, shall I? Goodbye. '''Jack''' (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:::You were unblocked by focussing on the socking, but your behaviour in the past has been equally block-worthy for the personal attacks you would make and that has not been addressed. You claim to be focussed on improving articles, so if that is what you do then I will have no issues and promise to ignore you too. Spike 'em (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
{{cbot}}

Peers

Hi I set a standard for the living life peers who are current members in the House of Lords, I have done the Thatcher appointments.

Would you help me do this format for all the living ones please.

See my edits.

RugbyFan88 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry, I've really no interest in doing this. Spike 'em (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
::Ok but I have moved the Lords Temporal ↗ to Lord Temporal ↗ for you RugbyFan88 (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The hatchet?

{{ctop|title=BlackJack Part 2}}
Hi. I suppose this may be construed as an attempt to bury the hatchet.

If you care to look at 1765 English cricket season ↗, which I've just improved to B-class standard, you'll see it concerns Richmond Cricket Club (18th century) ↗, which I know to be of interest to you. By all means read the article, and see if it needs improvement. Providing you can cite reliable sources, please amend it and improve it.

The point I'm making, which applies to all articles about 18th century cricket, is that the August 2018 version of this article was recently restored in the interests of WP:PRESERVE ↗, because reliably sourced content ↗ had been removed. I won't going into why the content was removed other than the obvious conclusion of sheer spite, in direct breach of WP:CTBE ↗, and related policies.

If you compare the current version of the article with the August 2018 one, I think you'll see that it's essentially the same except that the match table has been converted to prose, as suggested by one of our more insightful editors (I'm sorry, I forget the lady's username) several years ago. If you then compare each of the August 2018 and current versions with the, frankly, useless stub of February 2019, you must surely agree that our readers will prefer the relevant, and reliably sourced, information of the 2018 or current versions.

Everything I do on Wikipedia, whether I am complying with the "rules(wankers)" or otherwise, is based on the principle that the site provides '''a service to our readers'''. I'm mostly interested in the history of cricket, but I've also taken subjects like Norway Debate ↗ and Winston Churchill ↗ to WP:GA ↗. I write articles based on reliable sources which will hopefully give the readers useful information. I also try, not always successfully, to encourage new editors. There are certain other editors on the site who evidently believe they are oracle ↗s, who tell our readers that cricket matches in 1726 were "elven-aside", or that a portrait was "pained by the artist", or that James Aylward ↗ made his record score FOR England. These oracles also trash ↗ newcomers for such trifles as converting "2021–" to "2021–present", this in their precious infoboxes, with the result that the newcomer does not return.

I think you have been defending the indefensible. You're essentially a half-decent editor who could contribute so much more. Why not focus on quality, as per Talk:1726 English cricket season/GA1 ↗, rather than supporting someone who produces absolute BS like this ↗ which, apart from being both reliably and largely unsourced, was also a breach of WP:NOR ↗, WP:PRESERVE ↗, WP:PROSPLIT ↗, and God knows what else.

You have a lot to offer, Spike. Please think about that. All the best, '''Jack''' (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

:We'll have to agree to disagree on this: I see this post as you continuing a vendetta against BST. He doesn't seem to be editing at the moment so this could be seen just as much as WP:GRAVEDANCING ↗ as what you are accusing him of. Some of your previous behaviour, in particular conduct towards other editors is as equally indefensible, and part of making a fresh start should be dropping the stick and getting on with the article improvement. Spike 'em (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
::Okay, I'll go along with you there, as long as you understand that article improvement is done ''because the articles need improvement'', and not because a certain other user has edited them, even if the activities of that user have created a pile of articles which need work. See you around, '''Jack''' (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
:::You still haven't dropped the stick then? Spike 'em (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
{{cbot}}

WP:RUCD ↗

{{ctop|title=BlackJack Part 3}}
In view of your "parting shot" remarks at the BST talk page last night, I think our differences have reached the stage where formal dispute resolution is necessary. I trust that you agree this is a conduct dispute, not a content dispute, and that the first step is to try and resolve matters on a user talk page. WP:RUCD ↗ says: {{tq|the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page}}, so I'm raising it here. If we can't resolve things here, I intend to ask an administrator to mediate, as you are entitled to do also.

According to you, I am (1) conducting a vendetta against BST. You say I (2) "have hounded BST off this site", and that I am (3) guilty of WP:GRAVEDANCING ↗.

I'll deal with #2 first. BST's last mainspace edits were on 12 November 2025. He made three more edits later in the month to settle his user and talk pages under his new name. He has been absent for two months now, but that is nothing new for him at this time of year. For example, he was absent from 16 December 2023 to 26 January 2024. There is no reason to suppose he will not return. On 12 November 2025, when BST made his last mainspace edits, I was still blocked, and I was reinstated on 19 November. Therefore, I fail to see how I hounded him off the site, especially as I did not use Enwiki for six months before posting my application to return.

Turning to #3, GRAVEDANCING concerns people who have definitely left the site, and there is still every reason to expect BST to return. While you choose to accuse me of GRAVEDANCING, I notice you have nothing to say about WP:CTBE ↗, and I doubt if you ever advised BST to respect WP:PRESERVE ↗ when he was wilfully ruining all those 18th century cricket season reviews by removing sourced information, and making egregiously untrue statements in his edit summaries. Perhaps you can provide some diffs to show how you tried to dissuade BST from breaching CTBE and PRESERVE?

In my post to BST on 1 December, I pointed out that 1726 English cricket season ↗, one of the earliest season reviews, had just been promoted to WP:GA ↗. That happened despite the damage done to it by BST between 2018 and 2020. The point was that the 2017 version of the article may not have been complete, but it was a good basis for development. It should therefore have been preserved pending development. I restored the 2017 version when I decided to push it forward to GA. Are you saying that PRESERVE is wrong, and that the 2020 version was an improvement on the 2017 one? Are you also saying that someone who breaches PRESERVE on a serial basis should not be told about it, and asked to respect the policy?

Then there is WP:BITE ↗. When I applied for reinstatement, part of the process was to consult the blocking admin. In my case, that was Bbb23, but I couldn't consult him because he had been WP:RECALL ↗ed and quit the site. I was surprised to see he had gone, and I read his recall case. One of the main charges against him was WP:BITE ↗. If you read that guideline, you will see that it says welcoming newcomers is "a necessity for Wikipedia's survival".

I had had my fill of BST after restoring and repairing hundreds of 18th and 19th century articles that he had, shall we say, impacted. Nevertheless, even after all the work that was necessary to get Kent County Cricket Club ↗ up to scratch, I had no intention of revisiting his talk page. Then, when I began the Lucknow review, he cropped up in the history with his usual put-downs of an IP who had tried to improve the article. At first, I just shook my head, and thought: "Typical!" The review led me to look at related articles, which in turn took me to the IPL seasons list. I scanned its contribs page and saw the FLAGS thing, which was the last straw.

Ever since I joined Wikipedia, under whatever "incarnation", I have always tried to welcome newcomers unless they were obviously here to be disruptive. There have been countless times when I have had to correct beginners' errors, but I have never addressed the newcomer in a condescending fashion using words like "utterly", "whatsoever", "innit", "ffs", etc. I've been aware for a very long time, though, of someone who does "bite the newbies" in that way, even though his own work is generally poor, and often riddled with inexcusable errors like "elven-aside" and "wicket=keeper".

If I see someone showing disrespect to newcomers, I'm always likely to react to it. There is absolutely no excuse for it, and all good editors should clamp down hard on those who do it. It's like a kid in the second form at school bullying one who has just started in the first form. It's totally unacceptable. If Bbb23 can be recalled for doing it, then something should be done about BST also.

You, however, seem not to care about those newbies who probably gave up, and have not returned. All you care about is that, once again, BST's card has had to be marked. Why don't you accept that he is completely in the wrong when he bullies a newcomer? Why is protecting him more important to you than protecting the newbies and improving the encyclopaedia?

Please tell me what you would do if you came across another experienced editor bullying a newbie by trying to belittle them. Would you admonish and expose the bully, or just "let sleeping dogs lie", except that the dogs are wide awake? And, if you would warn the bully on that occasion, would you do the same if you came across one of BST's many instances?

There are a lot of question marks above, but I have noticed that you tend to play at WP:IDHT ↗ where BST is concerned. This time, I expect you to answer every one of those questions without trying to twist things. Otherwise, there is no point in continuing this discussion, and I will refer the matter to an administrator.

Take your time replying. There's no rush. Thank you, '''Jack''' (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

:I consider your behaviour to BST to be bullying. I don't think it is a coincidence that he has chosen to stop editing when he saw you were being unblocked, given you had bullied him whilst socking. You also are failing to be civil, in a manner that you are demanding of him. If you want mediation then that is fine but as I see it, if you stop posting on his talk page / about him until he actually returns then I see no reason why we would need to interact. Spike 'em (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
::Okay, I'll stay away from his talk page until the next time he breaches a policy or guideline, given that you also believe he will return. After all, the evidence has accumulated now, and it remains in site history. As for interaction, one thing I would ask an administrator to do is impose an IBAN between us. Oh, and I notice you haven't answered any of my questions.
::Be aware, though, that I will continue to revert or repair bad editing wherever I find it, whoever has done it.
::For the record, I consider this RUCD closed. '''Jack''' (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Oh, and I notice you haven't answered any of my questions.}} I notice you haven't denied bullying BST. At what stage do you think it becomes acceptable to be abusive to another editor, given you make such a big deal about BITE? To be honest, I have not really read through your essay above and am far more concerned about your conduct that BSTs. I have no more requirement to answer your questions than you do mine.Spike 'em (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::::Okay, I DENY that I have bullied BST, and I DENY that there is anything abusive in the posts I have sent to him since November last year. What I do when warning someone (anyone) is to point out serious breaches of important policies and guidelines. Given that it has been necessary for me (and others, including at least one experienced admin) to warn one particular person about their conduct on numerous occasions, it seems we have problems with that person. As I said before, the evidence has accumulated.
::::{{tq|I have not really read through your essay above and am far more concerned about your conduct that BSTs}} = WP:IDHT ↗. Again.
::::I'm taking this off my watchlist now because it's a waste of time. I've told you that I will stay away from BST's talk page until the next time he breaches a policy or guideline. Which means I'll simply restore or repair any damage that's been done already, and then forget about it. So, if he doesn't return, that's the end of it. But, if he does return, and he continues to make bad edits and breach our editing policies, he'll be told about it, as will anyone else who does the same. '''Jack''' (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Ok, I've had a look at the PRESERVE issue, and honestly I see little difference between this version ↗ and this one ↗. WP:PRESERVE ↗ says it is ok to remove contentious / NPOV / OR material, and BST has made such notes in some of his edit summaries. You also edited the article within that time frame and honestly think you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Spike 'em (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::::And looking into the edit summaries you mention : I think you are trying to find the absolute worst interpretation of what BST has been saying. Some of his edit summaries could be worded a bit more neutrally, but I am failing to see any BITE issues. You'd get laughed out of court if you tried raising this as a conduct dispute at ANI. Spike 'em (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
:{{tq|Ever since I joined Wikipedia, under whatever "incarnation", I have always tried to welcome newcomers unless they were obviously here to be disruptive}} This ↗ as one example would beg to differ. You have also posted screeds of text on people's talk pages denigrating their contributions, which is completely in contrast to what you claim is a collaborative approach to editing. I will take no lectures from you on behaviour. Spike 'em (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::As an example of your previous hostility : {{tq|I fancied a bit of fun before I turn in tonight to show what I think of royalist ruleswankers who support Johnson and defend cunts like the BS thing}}
::I don't know why your appalling attacks on other editors was overlooked when you were unblocked, and I'm sure it won't be long until you have another flameout claiming the project is broken. You are by far the worst behaved editors I have seen on here and it is a pity that you have bullied another editor off the site. Spike 'em (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
:::And whilst I may be a "ruleswanker" I have also had a userbox identifying myself as a republican since 2017 ↗ Spike 'em (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
{{cbot}}

Templates for deletion

Hello! I see that the World Twenty20 squad navboxes have been nominated for deletion. But these were only created after the discussion in WP:Cricket ↗ at here ↗, where the consensus was to have the squad navboxes for T20 World Cups and Cricket World Cups and just the ones for Winners for other ICC events considering they are literally "World championships" for the sport. Cric editor (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

:Many apologies, I'll remove the CSD notices. I did do a search and even though I took part in the discussion you linked, I didn't find it!
:I remembered the navboxes being deleted before, but not the subsequent discussion. Spike 'em (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::Rather annoyingly searching for navbox ↗ on WT:CRIC did not find the discussion, and searching for squad ↗ had it on the second page. Spike 'em (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:::No worries man! Totally understandable. Thanks for reverting them tho, cheers :) Cric editor (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

AfD query

Hi - Our paths have crossed occassionally over the years so I hope you don't mind the request. I was going to ask BST as he has helped in the past, but it seems he is not around. There is an AfD ↗ that you might be able to advise on, either in support or not. I genuinely don't see the problem at the moment, but if there is one I would appreciate it being spelled out so that I am clear. Cheers Bs1jac (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

:Done. As you may see above / on BSTs talk page, I have major AGF issues with a returning editor. Spike 'em (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
::Ah I wasn't aware. I try not to get involved! Bs1jac (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Nor do I usually! Spike 'em (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

A small annoyance

Good evening and sorry for bothering you. I'm also sorry for behaving inappropriately in the past. I hope you forgive me. I now want to show you what the federation's source https://www.epo.gr/en/node/32612 says (in both Greek and English) so that you understand that the other user does not have honest intentions. Πούμα (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:I have removed a WP:COPYVIO ↗ wall of text and I will only discuss this at Talk:Greek Football Super Cup ↗. Spike 'em (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Layla Drury at Manchester United

Hi are you able to take a look at this ? I think it's ready to go. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Layla_Drury# ↗ Mileslucio (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry

Dear Spike 'Em or whatever your name is,
I'm just posting here to apologise. I didn't know you were a sort-of 'expert' in cricket.
Don't worry, I'm a qualified cricket coach.
I can help you with your batting if you're struggling with it, and I take it from your profile that you're a good bowler. Hope that's true!
I'm a Sussex Fan but occasionally support Surrey when they play against other teams (besides Sussex).
Lots of good Surrey players play for England!
Anyway good luck and no thanks for criticising my page.
I'll see you at the Kia Oval someday!
Go Well!
Nilma NilmaDole (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Infobox cricketer

Hi, Spike. Thanks for completing the teams thing we discussed at CRIC. I should have realised it was just a documentation change, and I could have done it myself, but I thought all proposals had to be requested. I'm not a template editor. Anyway, it's better that someone else did the change, as I was too involved. All the best, Jack (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

George Dunn (Australian curator)

Hi, Spike. How is an AfD closure handled? I must admit I didn't know there is any kind of formal process. Jack (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

:You need to raise it with the closer, and then deletion review if you don't come to an agreement and you still think the close was improperly done. Spike 'em (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, thanks, I looked at WP:AFD ↗ and found it there. I've left a message at Svartner's page, and given them till Monday or it's off to DRV. I see they have been challenged several times previously about non-admin closures. Jack (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello

Hi @Spike 'em its me Ashie6213 I have spent some time thinking about those curator articles and though you were right and maybe we should delete a few I have a couple in mind Charlie Checkett, Arthur Lance and if you want some help making articles for lords curators I am here to help Ashie6213 (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

AnomieBOT

{{ctop|title=BlackJack Part 4}}
The '''AnomieBOT''' is an extremely useful sub-routine that tidies things up really well. Much of its work consists of correcting beginners' errors, which is of course fair enough, and it's also good for vetting AWB edits which are difficult to preview. As far as normal editing by experienced editors is concerned, it should only be needed occasionally in the event of an unintentional error.

The bot should not have to waste time ↗ cleaning up after people who can't or won't apply templates in the correct way. There's also this ↗ and this ↗. For example, people who think '''<nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki>''' is how to request a citation. Someone who has been here for over ten years, and completed over 30k edits, should be able to apply templates correctly, unless there is a WP:CIR ↗ issue.

The correct application of that template is '''<nowiki>{{citation needed|date=June 2026}}</nowiki>'''. You can find this at ''':Template:Citation needed ↗''', which is not difficult to read or understand.

Do please try to use templates correctly, so that AnomieBOT is not lumbered with unnecessary tasks.

As for the SPS citations, I was quite aware that they were there. All those articles are works in progress after being '''rescued''' during the last six months, and the SPS citations were temporarily restored with them to remind me that I need something from one of the published book sources, probably Ian Maun ↗ who is the most comprehensive, especially as virtually everything in his books tallies with ''From Lads to Lord's''. In fact, as his books were published after ''FLTL'', he is the only other source who verifies the dating of that match in 1729. Yes, it was me who spotted that dating error, just as it was me who discovered another match which took place in 1731. You can play WP:IDHT ↗ about that if you like, but it's true, though no big deal as far as I'm concerned. As I am working with about a thousand articles covering early cricket, it takes a bit of time to get around them all, and others have higher priority at present.

As for your contention ↗ that I am "edit warring", please see Artillery Ground ↗ and tell me that this ↗ was a constructive edit, and that subsequent edits by Dormskirk (no ping) and myself amount to non-constructive edit warring. That's just one article out of several hundred. You might also take a look at Bishopsbourne Paddock ↗, and note the egregious untruths, shall we call them, in this edit summary ↗. Given the overwhelming weight of reputable sources over one statistical database, was I edit warring when I restored the original article title? You might notice that I've even included one match mentioned in Buckley where the venue was given as "Bourn Paddock". Just to complete the hat-trick, please look at John Frame ↗, where I was accused (in breach of WP:CTBE ↗) of making "shit" up, to see who can read sources correctly, and who can not.

Restoring content that was removed in violation of WP:PRESERVE ↗ is NOT edit warring. I suggest you also read WP:ASPERSION ↗.

Finally, now that I've been made aware of it, I'd be quite happy to take this discussion/dispute/issue/whatever to WP:3PO ↗ and beyond. I would be very interested, using the examples I've given (out of hundreds more) to see if other members of the community think I've been edit warring by acting in the interests of WP:PRESERVE ↗ to improve our coverage of cricket history. At least one much-respected member agrees that breaching PRESERVE is "not a good look" ↗. Jack (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

:Using bare {{tl|cn}} and relying on the bot is perfectly reasonable: are you worried the bot might get tired? Could you please point me to site guidelines that say not to do this?
:And yes, you are edit-warring with BST. The 2 of you have different standards about what to include in articles / how to classify matches / which sources to use. Rather than raise this at WP:CRIC ↗ you have chosen to berate / goad him at <s>20+</s>30+ article talk pages. I have suggested to you multiple times that you let it go, but you are still doing it. What do you honestly hope to achieve by polluting every page you "rescue" with a diatribe about "gross incompentence"?
:You blindly reverting work that he has done could equally face accusations of PRESERVE, as you seem to revert to a version before he editted, without assessing the quality of the article, and you have sometimes restored content that is clearly not encyclopedic (I can't find the page at the moment but in one article you restored content where you speculated on whether a cricketer went abroad to explain his absence).
:Somewhat minor point, but on Bishopsbourne Paddock you claim a 7-0 victory in the sources. You removed CricketArchive which uses the other name, so it should be 7-1 (I've not searched myself for any either way).
:Yes, many of his edit summaries towards your use of the SPS are unnecessarily provocative / antagonistic, so I will not try to defend him on that point.
:I could easily cite many occurances of you making personal attacks against other editors, so I will take no lecture from you about behaviour. I will also mention that the "not a good look" comment that you seem fond of quoting can find its roots in you disingenuously taking part in arbitration with BST whilst socking : An issue for you to consider ↗ & User:BlueSquareThing ↗.
:If you really want someone else to get involved, then I am fine with that if you feel it will be helpful. Other than remove the SPS I don't think I have reverted anything you have done, so this would seem to be a conduct issue. Spike 'em (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
:I will also point out that in January you said you'd consider our dispute over in another similar discussion: since then you have posted multiple times about BST on his and article talk pages.

::Paragraph by paragraph:

::1. I'd have thought it was good editing practice to apply templates correctly.

::2a. If you think I am edit warring, take me to WP:AN ↗ or wherever. I use reliable sources, and BST deletes them as per Artillery Ground ↗. ''CricketArchive'' (CA) is invariably at odds with the respected book sources, as in the name of Bishopsbourne Paddock ↗. Worst of all is that BST insists CA's statistics are absolutely final, even though he knows full well that the C18 data is hopelessly incomplete, which means presentation of those figures as fact is false information. I'm sorry for forgetting the guy's name, but there was one bio in which BST declared that he played, say, 32 matches because CA says so. In fact, the man is known to have played in at least a dozen more matches, all important ones, from which no scorecard has survived. He did not play in 32, but in 44, as all sources combined do confirm. BST, effectively if not always actually, contends that if it isn't in CA, it didn't happen.
:::I should add that, though the databases are unreliable up to at least 1825, they become increasingly more reliable as source information becomes increasingly more comprehensive. From 1864 onwards, they are reliable because they had S&B, the Lillys, and Wisden for verification then, plus detailed coverage in the newspapers.

::2b. What to include in articles is information that is relevant and, if not actually referenced, sourceable. You do NOT reduce articles to stubs by removing valid content, which is what BST does. Look at Artillery Ground ↗ again, and ask yourself why Dormskirk (not me) restored that section. Dormskirk is interested in historic sites (which this certainly is), and ''inter alia'' BST had removed (with three good sources):
::{{quote|From 1498, about 11 acre ↗s (4.5 hectare ↗) of the {{convert|23|acre|ha|adj=on}} Bunhill Fields ↗ were set aside for the practice of archery ↗ and 'shooting'. Today's {{convert|8|acre|ha|adj=on}} site was acquired by the Honourable Artillery Company ↗ (HAC) in 1638. The HAC had formerly owned a site in Bishopsgate ↗, and this was finally sold in 1658.}}

::2c. How to classify matches is clearly explained at First-class cricket ↗. I know that wasn't a WP:GA ↗ until this week, but it has for many years tried to explain the difference between matches that are historically important and those that qualify for the statistical record. If you read the final paragraph about Wisden's comments, that says it all.

::2d. All editors are entitled, and indeed encouraged, to use an article's talk page for pointing out problems they have found, and suggesting ways of improving the page. If I find that someone has wilfully degraded a page, even if it is Jimbo himself, I will tell them what I think of it. You may notice that I carry the "difficult actions" userbox on my userpage, because I am not afraid to speak out about bad editing, such as this ↗. What would you do if someone accused you of making up shit when you can prove otherwise, and then alters the article so that it is now wrong? So far, this paragraph has been all about egregious editing. The other side of the coin is the genuine human-error mistake. With one of those, I simply correct it with a polite edit summary. If the person is a new editor, I may also "welcome" them, or give them a bit of encouragement. BST, though, WP:BITE ↗s them, using arrogant words like "utterly" and "whatsoever", with the result that many go away and do not return.

::2e. It follows that what I hope to achieve is that either: (a) BST will take notice, and get his act together as regards PRESERVE, etc.; or (b) that exposing his activities will encourage a sysop to block him. That's a straight answer to your straight question.

::3a. I ALWAYS assess the quality of the article before taking action, and I NEVER do anything blindly. Artillery Ground ↗ is a case in point. I assessed it to be of very poor quality, and said so on the talk page. While I was working on it offline, Dormskirk stepped in and restored the 2018 version. I think I'd like to see an example of an article I have "blindly reverted without assessing the quality", so that I can explain the steps I took. I suggest you find one in the 1726 to 1800 season review series—not 1725 as it's new, not 1760 as it's a permanent stub, and probably neither 1744 nor 1772 as they've both been in WP:GA ↗ for a few years now.

::3b. The player who "went abroad" could be one of William Brazier ↗, George Louch ↗, or Richard Purchase ↗, or possibly one or two others. There had been speculation in ACS circles about where these guys got to during the 1770s. It was thought (but not verified) that they went to North America to fight the colonists, as the Earl of Winchilsea definitely did. I haven't restored Purchase, and Brazier's absence is mentioned only briefly, so it looks as if you are thinking of Louch. I tagged that article for citations after I restored it. Given the piece in the diary, it's a fair assumption that he joined the Navy, but it DOES need a citation. If, ultimately, I can't find anything suitable, I'll take it out, as I invariably do, but never abruptly. One thing you have to remember is that the bulk of these articles were first written in the mid-2000s (Louch in August 2006), and this was before we had inline citations. In those days, it was quantity before quality, and we just wrote down what we knew or had found. You can easily tell the difference between something written in 2006 and something written in 2026. If you look at the early articles I created, you'll see I always (or virtually so) included a list of source books.

::4. No, it was 7–0. VAR disallowed the CA goal. Controversial, of course, but not as bad as that Leeds player having a goal disallowed because "his hand was behind the last defender" when he was pointing to where his teammate should pass the ball.

::5. Thank you. Much appreciated.

::6. No, Charles complained to BST on his own initiative without any prompting from me, though he could well have been prompted by Dawnseeker. I jumped on the bandwagon, but it ran out of fuel. Furthermore, anything I did "whilst socking" is inadmissible. I stopped "socking" in May last year, and I was welcomed back to enwiki in November. You can have your say about my activities in the last twelve months, of course.

::7. I'm fine with the SPS thing. As I said earlier, I would have done it myself in the end anyway. I have tidied things up in those articles, and added other citations where requested. I generally do attend to an article same day if something comes up on the watchlist, so there's no problem. Thank you for helping me get that job out of the way.

::8. Always happy to discuss further. It isn't about content in your case, because I'm fine with the SPS changes. It very much about content, and also about conduct, where BST is concerned. Jack (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
::You don't get to choose what is admissable: you are a long-term disruptive editor, and whilst you have been unblocked it does not mean that your previous behaviour has been forgotten about. Spike 'em (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

:You replied to me saying: {{tq|if you stop posting on his talk page / about him until he actually returns then I see no reason why we would need to interact}}
:with
:{{tq|Okay, I'll stay away from his talk page until the next time he breaches a policy or guideline}} Spike 'em (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
::Back in January, I still didn't realise the scale of his destructive editing. I handled the ANI thing badly, as I said to Barkeep49, but you may notice I began by saying I was at the end of my tether. If you think I ''want'' to be involved in something like this, you are mistaken. All I want to do here is develop articles up to B-class (and some to GA) if possible. But I will not stand for someone spitefully degrading my work because they won't accept justified criticism ↗, which is where BST is coming from. Jack (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
:and {{tq|Yes, it was me who spotted that dating error}} confirms it was OR, so not an aspersion. Spike 'em (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
::I referred to aspersions in a different context—your accusation of edit warring. As I've pointed out above, something that was written in 2006 wasn't OR because my site was an acceptable source in those days. It was many years later that the decision was taken to exclude SPS. As for restoring it this year, it falls under what I've said above about SPS. In any case, it never was OR because Maun and McCann are sources for the match. It was just a matter of things falling into place eventually, which is basically how all articles get developed when the edits are few and far between. Jack (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Mindlessly reverting pages to a state that is not currently acceptable because you don't approve of the editor seems like textbook edit warring to me. If your SPS is not valid now, then anything based on it is OR: it is based on YOUR research, not a reliable source. Spike 'em (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I equate mindlessness with WP:IDHT ↗. You are talking absolute rubbish because, as I have said, Maun and McCann are the accepted sources for that material. As I said elsewhere, if you think restoring valid content is edit warring, take it ANI or wherever. Approval of an editor doesn't come into it. I assess the article, and then do what is necessary. Often, and this includes articles BST has edited, I do nothing. Your mindless assumptions and accusations, based largely upon IDHT and your cosy friendship with BST, are sticks and stones.
::::What you say about OR is completely illogical. WP:OR ↗ is material that ''cannot'' be supported by reliable sources, but this piece has two, so it cannot be OR, regardless of the fact that an SPS was once referenced. My source back in the day was McCann. Maun came later, but has the same information. Therefore, two acceptable sources are cited, while another source that is no longer acceptable has been withdrawn.
::::An example of a do nothing/do little article is Stephen Amherst ↗. That has had a few tweaks via AWB and scripts, mostly for the sake of consistency, but the changes have been little more than basic housekeeping. I read the article yesterday, though, thinking it would need work, but it doesn't. It's okay, and the main editor of the narrative has been BST. There are many more like that, so your "mindlessly reverting" bluster is out of order. Jack (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I simply don't agree with you here. You accuse someone of gross incompetence 40 times, but are then moaning because someone is calling out your behaviour. You are not acting in a neutral manner towards other editors, but letting your decade-long dispute cloud your judgement, and seem to find the worst possible interpretation of his actions. Spike 'em (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::For complete clarity: it takes 2 to edit war, and BST would seem to have taken a similar approach to much of your work. Were he to return (and we should probably do this even if he doesn't) then we'd need to find a middle ground between your editing style / content and his. Spike 'em (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
{{cbot}}

June 2026

{{ctop|title=BlackJack Part 5}}
48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗.

'''Do not''' create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage ↗ their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files '''are not tolerated''' by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be '''blocked ↗ from editing'''.   Jack (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

:In the recent ANI, you had your say ↗ about WP:ATTACK ↗, and yet you have been maintaining and adding to this—your own ATTACK page. It is supposed to be about SPI, but it includes BST 12/17 ↗, which was written by me as BlackJack, while the GS post which follows it was written to me as BlackJack. Then, in January, more than a month after I was reinstated, you created the list of dates at the end which is clearly an insinuation directed at me. Jack (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
::As regards your list of dates, the last contact I had with BST was this cordial discussion a year ago on my talk page ↗. This blows a hole in your insinuation about BST quitting because I was coming back. Even if he did go because of me returning, IF, you cannot claim that I did anything to upset him in our chat last June. Jack (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I agree that your last direct interaction was civil, but much of it before then, and all of your comments about him since your return are anything but civil. Spike 'em (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
::Someone has already declined your CSD so stop editting pages in my user area. It is a valid archive of previous discussions on my talk page, and no longer has extraneous links to other content. Spike 'em (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::See this ↗ and stop acting as if you are a law unto yourself. I suppose you are not listening as usual ↗. Jack (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Again : I will take no advice on behaviour from an editor as disruptive as you. Are you going to {{diff2|1131829523|call me a ruleswanker or Twat}} again? Spike 'em (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::The point here is that you completely ignored ↗ GB fan's advice to me this morning. Without that, I wouldn't have reapplied the G10. Please read everything that has been written in a post when you receive it, and acknowledge it in subsequent discussions. Also, read WP:GAME ↗ and stop trying to twist things. Jack (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::You can obviously make your own inferences, but mine is that he doesn't think the page is an attack page. If anyone is trying to GAME things it is you, with a re-request within a few hours of previously being declined. Spike 'em (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::GB fan said: {{tq|if you nominate it for deletion again under WP:G10. I won't decline it, I will leave it for another admin to decide.}} What in those 20-odd words is so difficult for you to comprehend? Oh, of course, WP:IDHT ↗. Jack (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
{{cbot}}

Question regarding recent reverts on the Men's and Women's Cricket World Cup pages

Hello Spike 'em,

I hope you are doing good. I wanted to reach out regarding the changes you made to my table layout edits on both the Men's and Women's Cricket World Cup pages on 11 June.

I think there was a little bit of a misunderstanding while you reverted the pages, particularly on the Women's Cricket World Cup pages. In your edit summary, you wrote, "Don't think winning captain is necessary here.". I want to point out that the specific column already existed as a permanent part of the table, even before I edited anything. I didn't introduce that column. I was just restructuring the layout format and CSS styling to clean up the presentation.

For the Men's page, my goal was to bring that same winning captain data over so that both tournament pages have absolute consistency and parity in how they present their histories. I spent a couple of hours trying to get the table coding, alignment, and alternating row colors looking clean. Since the data was already present on the Women's side, would you be open to letting me restore the unified layout? If not, I can edit the Women's page table as smooth as the men's page.

<nowiki>Let me know your thoughts. Thanks you. ~~~~</nowiki> NEEL1604 (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

:I don't think the winning captain is of sufficient note to include in a summary table in either article.
:I find that many tables in many different articles suffer from having too many columns added, and sometimes having fewer makes the table more readable and therefore of more use to the reader. Spike 'em (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
::Alright, Spike. That makes total sense. I agree with you on keeping the column count streamlined for readability. I am ready leave the winning captain column out.
::Looking closely at the presentation, my main goal is to bring complete visual uniformity to how we display tournament histories. I actually did a bit of a deep dive into the pages for other major international competitions—including the ICC Men's Champions Trophy, Men's T20 World Cup, ACC Men's Asia Cup and Women's T20 World Cup. Right now, the layouts are a bit fragmented across these articles. The T20 World Cup page does not even have a full fledged, proper table.
::My ultimate goal is to establish a standardised, clean template for all of them. I'd love to use the streamlined column structure currently on the Men's World Cup page as the baseline blueprint, but combine it with the alternating row colour striping seen on the Women's World Cup page, Men's Asia Cup page (and partially in the Champions Trophy table) to maximize readability.
::Since we're in agreement on the data constraints, would you be open to me starting this standardization process by updating the Men's and Women's World Cup tables to this uniform style first?
::<nowiki>Let me know what you think. Thanks you. ~~~~</nowiki> NEEL1604 (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I am completely on board with standardising the tables: I'll have another look at them to give you any other comments. Spike 'em (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
:::@NEEL1604, Men's T20 World Cup ↗ has a simpler table since the main table is instead available at Men's T20 World Cup tournaments ↗ which has also been re-formatted based on the WP:FLC ↗ review to be properly formatted. '''''Vestrian24Bio''''' 09:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
::::<nowiki>What do you suggest then? ~~~~</nowiki> NEEL1604 (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I believe the tables at Men's T20 World Cup tournaments ↗ are the sufficient format. When it's on a separate page as such a simpler table should be used on the main article. I'm open to discussions if you have any suggestions... '''''Vestrian24Bio''''' 10:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::I think we should then focus on the other tournament tables which you know... aren't even. NEEL1604 (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I agree. I do think that not just the tables but the entire articles should be organised the same. I've just recently started working on Women's T20 World Cup ↗ and I do plan to do ICC Champions Trophy ↗ after that. You could do the ODI WCs at the same time perhaps.. '''''Vestrian24Bio''''' 16:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
:Agree with Spike, winning captain is unnecessary to be included in the main WC articles. '''''Vestrian24Bio''''' 15:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect of Argentina–Egypt controversy article

Hi,
Thank you for your work on the article. I noticed that Argentina–Egypt controversy at the 2026 FIFA World Cup was redirected to 2026 FIFA World Cup Argentinian controversies.
I was wondering if you could explain the reasoning behind the redirect. My understanding was that the article had already been accepted through AfC as a standalone topic, and it covers a specific controversy with substantial independent sourcing.

I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thank you. Rayhan Ahmed Tamim (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

:Because the article covers much of the same information as the other one. Both were created in the aftermath of the game. We don't need multiple articles about the same subject. IMO neither is notable enough in its own right to have a standalone article rather than an appropriate section in the main 2026 controversies one. I have boldly redirected it, you are free to undo this but I will send it to AfD if anyone does happen to do this. Spike 'em (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)