User talk:Left guide/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Left guide. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi. I'm Barkeep49, an editor and administrator. Per WP:RELIST third relists are to be generally avoided. The guideline further states that when making a 3rd relist, a short statement should be provided explaining the relist is possible, rather than closing, for instance, as no consensus. I think the third relist you did at Articles_for_deletion/Dutch exonyms was likely defensible but not with a statement like "final relist". Let me know if you have any questions or if I can help you out in any way with this concept. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I used to relist cases like that pretty often I think. I recall people getting annoyed at me for not relisting. I've since grown out of it and tend to write "no consensus, and none likely to arise", which seems to ward off the complaints. Either that or people have simply decided to stop messing with me now that I'm not the babiest admin anymore. -- asilvering (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Thanks for chiming in; any general advice on deciding to close as "no consensus" vs. another relist? Those can be tough judgments I want to get better at. Left guide (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I would have closed this one as "no consensus" given how ambivalent everyone is about it. That doesn't suggest to me that we're going to get any more or better arguments, so we might end up with a numerical win for keep/delete that isn't actually really worth anything, which would be rather worse than closing as no consensus. I'm more inclined to do a third relist if there's something weird going on (eg numerical superiority for delete, but none of the delete votes make any sense or they're probable socks), or if there's a really well-argued vote and a bunch of really meh ones that don't really attempt to counter it. Having experienced the frustration of making a perfectly solid delete argument on something that really needs to go, and gotten stuck with a no-consensus close just on the numbers, I try to avoid letting that happen to others where I can. -- asilvering (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49, thanks for advising me on this. I'll remember to provide better explanations on future 3rd relists. Best, Left guide (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Also apologies in advance if there are other past 3rd relists from me like that active in the logs right now; it's possible. Left guide (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

No worries. I left the note in the spirit of future growth and improvement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep49! It's definitely appreciated. Best, Left guide (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• As a frequent relister, I should add my 2 cents. Some editors get angry at "No consensus" closures (sometimes from both sides at once) and other editors are annoyed by additional relists. It's important to keep both of those facts in mind when you are considering what to do next. But this is an unfortunate situation where editors on different sides are dissatisfied no matter what you do. And, yes, I realize, it's not important whether or not editors are "happy" with a closure but you do want to make a closure that makes sense to the participants. But, yes, try to avoid 3rd closures and I say that as a reminder to myself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you Liz, this is very good advice. Left guide (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

In the spirt of WP:NACD's Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins, consider also just leaving those to admins to decide.—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I already do in the vast majority of such cases, and only work within the range of what I feel comfortable and competent in. Thank you Bagumba. :) Left guide (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Characters of the Kirby series. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Computerfan0 (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Left guide, just to let you know, script is useful for removing requests once completed, rather than using done template (as there is no auto-archiving to speak of, only human intervention). I've since removed the requests you completed with this edit. Regards, CNC (talk) CNC (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: Hi, thanks for informing me (and for removing my completed moves). I wasn't sure what the protocol is there, so I've been adding the {{done}} template as a courtesy to the requester so they can see for a short while that it's completed. Also wasn't previously aware that it must be done manually with no bot; I'll simply remove them as I complete them going forward. Thanks again. Left guide (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Passing comment, but there is a clerking bot at RM/TR now (and has been for a couple of months). Tenshi! (Talk page) 12:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi: Got it, thanks! Left guide (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh my bad wasn't aware of that, looks like my advise is two months out of date then :) CNC (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I think the anon user who made this request was a sock, or more probably an unlogged-in alias of User:Anishelar, whom I've just blocked for three months for disruptive editing. Unfortunately s/he doesn't get the need for a review of his/her drafts, even after several warnings. I won't bother to try to sort out the mess this time; it's a lot better than most of the other stuff s/he's produced. Just keep an eye out for anyone requesting technical moves of Indian films in the near future - it could be because they know there's already a draft that's failed review. Deb (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Deb: Ok thanks for informing me about this. Left guide (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Left guide. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

no rush, and no need to answer. Just a heads up Star Mississippi 16:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The reason no one was able to "prove" the existence of the pictured newspapers is because no one even attempted to check Zimbabwean newspaper archives. Given the keep-majority (5-4, and one "redirect" didn't even provide any explanation at all) and that the discussion was controversial, I would've expected an admin to close this... BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello BeanieFan11, I understand that the numbers of votes were relatively even, and that the discussion can be reasonably seen as controversial, but the close summarized a thoughtful analysis of the arguments based on their weighting in relevant policies, so I still stand behind it. If you believe my judgment was in error, I invite you to open a deletion review to summon community input. Best, Left guide (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Gillow. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ike Lek (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Left guide, I just wanted to let you know there is a discussion over at Template talk:Uw-gaming1 regarding potential improvements made to the Uw-gaming template series. Please feel free to leave any suggestions there. Thanks! Gommeh 🎮 17:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gommeh: Hello and thanks for notifying me. I mainly chimed in at the TfD to save it from deletion, which seemed like overkill for this situation. Consider opening a discussion at the idea lab village pump to solicit community feedback from people interested in this type of thing; perhaps say it's your idea-in-progress so folks there understand the relevance. Good luck. Left guide (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Left guide,

You should not have reverted this edit here as this AFD was posted on the wrong day and was correctly listed on tomorrow's daily log. It should not have been listed on two different daily log pages and was correctly being removed from today's daily log as it is due to be closed on August 10th, not the 9th. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: Ok, thanks for catching that. This was discussed in greater detail with jlwoodwa at User talk:jlwoodwa#AfD procedural fault where it turns out I made that change based on an incomplete understanding of the situation. I was going to self-revert upon reading this knowing it's on two logs, but it looks like you got to it first. Thanks for fixing, and sorry about the mishap. Left guide (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean to move it there? It looks like we may have done the same request at WP:RMTR — Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi: Hi, thanks for flagging. No, I did not intend to move the page there. I suspect the mover script glitched since we were both attempting to do the same move at the same time at the WP:RMTR request. Let me go back and try to fix it. Left guide (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed, all is well now. Left guide (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

"When two page movers collide, script issues ensue" or something like that. Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi: yes precisely, keep up the good work with page-moving. Left guide (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I noticed you're relisting a lot of discussions at RfD that have no participation, but that's usually unnecessary per WP:RGUIDE: If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete. Those are typically deleted once an admin comes through (unless there's some other aspect that needs discussion). It's a quirk of redirects not being PROD-able. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tavix: Ok thanks for informing me about this, I'll remember to avoid relisting those ones from now on. Left guide (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tavix: Btw, I noticed you're an admin, so if you see any RfDs recently re-listed by me that fit this standard, feel free to delete anytime, you have my blessing, thanks. Left guide (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

For sure. I usually patrol for closures from the back (oldest) though so I don't usually make it that far... -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I apologize, I was not aware that the article was deleted so recently. I have been editing Sikh caste articles recently and stumbled upon that Mochi page today. I attempted to rename it but it wouldn’t let me and I left it at that. It is coincidence that I happened to stumble upon the article today after it had just been deleted. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@MaplesyrupSushi: No worries, it's a good-faith mistake. If you wish to rename a page but lack the technical ability to do so, consider filing a page move request at WP:RMTR where others with the right tools can review your request. Regards, Left guide (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Mormon American football players has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Mormon baseball players has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Mormon basketball players has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I think I figured out what happened with that double relisting. You opened the XFDCloser relist dialog box just before midnight UTC, and kept it open for a few minutes past midnight. Meanwhile, just after midnight, I relisted the AfD myself, which added it to the 21 August page. At that point, when you clicked "Save", the 20 August date was still cached by the script, so it added the page to the 20 August page.

The XFDCloser script checks to make sure you don't relist an XfD that has already been relisted that day, but I guess no one thought of adding a check to make sure it hasn't been relisted the following day...

Anyway, I removed the AfD from the 20 August page. Feel free to remove the duplicate relist notice, or leave it there, seeing as we both pretty much said the same thing. :) Owen× ☎ 00:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I see you already removed the duplicate relist while I was typing this. I should have known you'd be faster. ;) Owen× ☎ 00:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@OwenX: Yeah, I had the log page open for quite a while without reloading. I removed my re-list comment as a gesture of deference, and also because you "beat" me by doing it first (though technically Wikipedia is not supposed to be about winning LOL). Everything looks good to go now, thanks for following up about this. Left guide (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Left guide,

Could you revert your closure here? We can't close an AFD discussion with a Redirect or Merge outcome when the target article is a Redirect page. Often participants don't check and identify a Redirect when they need to specify an existing article instead. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok  Done. Left guide (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Liz: it seems to me the closure was perfectly correct. A redirect loop would be a problem, but Left guide closed as "merge", meaning the page under discussion would be tagged, and nothing was broken. Indeed it's been closed that way now by Asilvering. The participants did identify the correct target, and proposed expanding it into a parent article. It happens to be a redirect right now but that's immaterial. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

cc @Asilvering: Left guide (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey Left guide, I saw your minor edit, but thought it could be confusing the way it is now worded. It kind of sounds like only players from the 19th century were selected. Thoughts? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@GOAT Bones231012: Hi, thanks for inquiring. My rationale for the change is that in the spirit of MOS:DATED, having "past" assumes the reader is digesting the material during the year 2025, and looking back at the past from the present moment. In four-and-a-half months, I therefore see the tense as being out-of-date and requiring an update. IMO, it's better to have the writing built to last indefinitely rather than be only applicable for a certain period of time. As for your explanation, I think I see what you mean. What if we use "between 1925 and 2025" as a compromise? Maybe that would assuage both of our concerns? Left guide (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

"between 1925 and 2025" sounds good with me. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@GOAT Bones231012:  Done, thanks for being collaborative about this. Left guide (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course. And just realized I wrote 19th century instead of 20th century in my first message🤦‍♂️🤣 GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Left guide, I was wondering if you’d think it would be appropriate to start adding AP All-Time All-America college football team to the career highlights and awards section of the infobox for players who were selected. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@GOAT Bones231012: Hi, for this type of change, consider opening a discussion at a relevant project talk page first, probably WT:NFL since I assume most (or all) of those players were also in the NFL. I think we both know how particular the sports community can be to hold the line on WP:DUE and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (and understandably so) for athlete awards. The NFL project player style guide at WP:NFLSTYLEPL#Highlights may already have had a consensus to qualify this award (I'm not 100% sure from reading it though), in which case it should be smooth sailing for you, but it doesn't hurt to double-check. Hope this helps. Left guide (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

When there's no discussion it's better to relist the discusison rather than close and redirect the category.^SMason_Garrison 04:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison: Ok, then I can vacate this close, and relist instead. Thank you for expressing the concern. Left guide (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I have relisted it. Left guide (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I've renominated Jayden Daniels for featured article. Any further comments if possible would be welcome. — Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Left guide. Just wanted to get your opinion on whether you think I bludgeoned in this AfD. I apologised to the editor who called me out for it and I'm not going to respond anymore in that AfD. I decided to educate myself on bludgeoning over at AN/I and I think I've learnt what to look out for regarding it. I definitely didn't need to repeat my points over and over. I know you've closed some of the AfD discussions I've participated, is this something I need to work on not doing? Thank you and just wanted to add I appreciate the work you do at AfD! 11WB (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@11wallisb: Hi, thanks for the kind words. I should start by saying this is the first time I recall anyone directly asking me for advice about their own conduct (but it indicates a high level of self-awareness and reflection on your part which is admirable) and it's not something I feel particularly comfortable or competent advising on. Regarding the AfD, even if you're not intending to, it plausibly looks like you're trying to get the last word in threaded replies to most of the comments, and that can ultimately weaken your position. In most of your replies I see a thesis statement at the end along the lines of "merge is the best ATD/outcome", and I think that repetition could come off as bothersome to others since that stance is already clearly indicated in the nomination statement. I see decent support from other experienced editors for the merge, so I think it's generally best to let them take up your cause for you, and try not to get too attached to the result. A good closer will judge on the strength (not the volume or quantity) of arguments, and if you think the closer errs in that regard, WP:DRV is available as a safety valve. Some watchers of this talk page might be able to give better advice (@Bagumba: in particular comes to mind), or @OwenX: who is a godsend for all things AfD which you may already know. Left guide (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. If it was inappropriate to ask, I'll try to be more confident in my own self-reflection in the future. It wasn't my intention to put you on the spot at all. I agree with the observations you have made. I have exhibited the behaviours of a participant which I've tried hard to avoid. This is disappointing. I have made some large blunders in some recent AfDs this month, this one being what seems to now be a trend. I have put this down to over-enthusiasm and not taking a moment to think before posting, which has, as you rightly put, become bothersome to others. I appreciate both yourself and the editor yesterday for identifying this, thank you. I feel confident now on the areas I need to improve on and the behaviours that aren't acceptable on Wikipedia. For the time being, I think I will stick to the quieter parts of the project, and make finishing NPP/S a priority! 11WB (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@11wallisb: You're welcome. It's not necessarily inappropriate, just new for me, which I don't mind too much, but means there may be limitations; it's good to be outside of one's comfort zone sometimes. Perhaps a more objective way to assess whether one is bludgeoning is to go to the page's history tab and click the "page statistics" button, to check things like who has the most edits and text volume. In this particular discussion page, you have 18 edits, and the second-most is 5. You are responsible for 42.7% of the page's text volume and the second-most is 12.8%. To be clear, this isn't meant to ridicule or shame, but to hopefully allow further reflection for future growth and improvement. You do a lot of good work around here, keep your head up. Best, Left guide (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. 11wallisb apologized and disengaged as soon as the accusation was made, which is the best way to deal with this situation. It's easy to get drawn into such debates unintentionally; I wouldn't dwell on this one.

Checking the page statistics is a great tip. Another one is this: if your reply starts with *::::, there's a fair chance the closer won't even read it, and even greater chance whoever you're arguing with won't change their mind. I find it more effective to address new concerns raised in a discussion with a new bulleted comment, e.g.:

• Comment: Please note that we routinely include incidents on approach to an airport in its respective "List of accidents and incidents at <X>" page. See for example Avianca Flight 052 and several others on the JFK list. Our standard practice doesn't require the accident to necessarily happen on the actual tarmac or within the airport's grounds to be included in that airport's list page.

This way, your comment gets the attention of everyone, without coming across as argumentative, as long as you don't repeat your proposed course of action. Of course, if you do too many of those in one discussion, you'd also be accused of bludgeoning, so it's best to save your ammo and address multiple issues in one such comment. Owen× ☎ 07:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I've actually tried using Xtools to find out that information before, this is very helpful to know! This month has been a bit shaky with some of the situations I've been involved in. I realise now that trying to avoid discussions where people disagree with you is quite challenging on Wikipedia. I don't take things personally, especially not when I'm in the wrong like I was yesterday. This gives me the opportunity to not make the same mistakes in the future and if I am about to do something that probably isn't the best decision, I can recall a previous time and then withdraw before proceeding.

As a quick aside to Owen's point on incident inclusion. I assumed this was the case as it wasn't explicitly written anywhere. That incident in question, would then be appropriate for that list. Definitely didn't mean to come across as argumentative towards SF, they are very experienced in aviation on Wikipedia (more so than me).

Thank you for the advice you've both given me! I will try my hardest to adapt and improve the way I communicate with others! 11WB (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for moving the All-America teams. The old naming system had been a "bee in my bonnet" for several years, but the prospect of doing a massive 100-plus page move request and then manually changing everything was daunting. I am happy we have young folk like you who know the shortcuts to get this done more efficiently. It made my morning to see that everything has been moved. Cbl62 (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Cbl62: You're welcome. And thank you for grabbing the infobox titles. Those are ones I wanted to pick up with the JWB tool, but couldn't figure out an easy way, so I passed on them. Left guide (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll keep working away at the infobox titles and a couple other items. As for the category, Category:College Football All-America Teams, is it possible using one of your tools to change all the category listings to Category:All-America college football teams? Cbl62 (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Thank you! I find you to be a great teammate for this task. And yes, I can move the category and change all of the category listings at the bottom of the articles. The category needs to be moved, so I appreciate the reminder. Left guide (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The sentiment is mutual. Cbl62 (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• There is an analogous group at Template:College Football All-Southern Teams/Category:College Football All-Southern Teams. Not nearly as important as the All-America teams, but these should eventually be renamed as well. Cbl62 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Cbl62: I'd suggest starting a proposal/discussion at WT:CFB for that set. I know the community can sometimes be disapproving of mass undiscussed moves, and I personally am hesitant to implement them. If it's just one or two pages, it's usually easily reversible if challenged. Left guide (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Understood. For now, I'm going to focus on cleaning up the All-America article. All-Southern teams are several notches less important. Cbl62 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)