User talk:AFC Vixen

What a Brilliant Idea!

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For your novel idea to tweak the maps for the 2022 and 2026 FIFA World Cups, I award you this barnstar! — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium and free photos

Hi, about your edit at Lusail Stadium, WP:NFCC policy #1 states: "non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available". Therefore File:Brésil vs Serbie.jpg at Commons is free and should be prioritized to be the main image on the article. The reason given by you, "(the file) illustrates more of the stadium's roof" is your opinion, but not enough to keep a NFCC file when there are several files of the subject under free licenses. Unless you have valid proof to consider that File:Brésil vs Serbie.jpg infringes Qatar's FoP policies (I think not because the stadium achitecture is not visible and the main subjects are the pitch and the people in grandstands), that image (or other hosted on commons:Category:Lusail Stadium) should be used instead. I'll be glad to hear your opinions about the topic. Fma12 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image is free-use. Published under a compatible Creative Commons licence and uploaded locally on the English Wikipedia, the file is under the United States copyright law, which is a lot more lenient about freedom of panorama. On Wikimedia Commons, the files have to abide by the copyright law of both the country it was taken in and the United States, which is why File:Lusail Stadium.jpg stays on the English Wikipedia and does not get uploaded to Commons. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image you uploaded is already hosted at Commons (commons:file:Lusail Iconic Stadium - 2022 FIFA WC.jpg) so it should be used instead so that is much bigger size and has better quality. Fma12 (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the image was taken into the stadium and the main topics depicted are the players and supporters on grandstands, it does not infringe any Qatar's FoP. Fma12 (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the same image, but I do agree with the point you made and hope that if a deletion discussion on Commons arises, you will be there to help support a case against it. If you could upload this specific photograph (Source here) and add {{NoFoP-Qatar}} to the file page, that would be great. It has an angle better favoured for a crop. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm going to upload that image, I was also talking about this topic at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Adnen1985 and those files are apparently ok (you can leave your feedback if necessary). At less, there is no strong objections or support to delete them. Thank you. Fma12 (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC has began

Just giving you a heads up that earlier tonight I posted the RfC on Template talk:2022–23 Top 14 Table. It was already added to the RfC listings under the Society, Culture and Sports umbrella and I additionally posted it on the talkpages of the wikiprojects for rugby union and rugby league. A couple editors have already added to the discussion. You should feel free to engage with them constructively and answer questions/concerns. Once the discussion has reached its conclusion in terms of activity you can post on Wikipedia:Closure requests to ask an uninvolved editor to close the RfC and identify a consensus. Thanks for your efforts and I wish you all the best going forward in your editing. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:2022–23 Top 14 Table

I see you requested that Template talk:2022–23 Top 14 Table not be deleted as being of importance to Module:Sports table. Unfortunately being at that specific title is causing some minor problems with other processes. Would it work to move that talk page to something like Module talk:Sports table/January 2023 RFC instead? Anomie ⚔ 20:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind that at all. I hope the "Sports table module" section above it is archived as well, since it is not only important context to the RfC, but also evidence of a certain user's behaviour, should I need to report them to the Administrators' noticeboard again. — AFC Vixen 🦊 21:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've moved the talk page to that name. Anomie ⚔ 21:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you, have the decency to not be rude and actually mention me by name and not being smart by having conversations behind my back. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely do not understand what good explicitly mentioning you by name in this context would’ve done. Wouldn’t that have been more rude? Also, why would I deliberately lie about my intentions to an administrator? Anomie, did I do anything wrong here? — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

🤷 I don't see anything particularly concerning. Anomie ⚔ 01:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion of splitting up Messi article

First off apologies. I jumped the gun (had only seen the split suggestion of moving club career to a separate article without seeing the further detail on talk of making it a summary on his main page). Wholeheartedly agree with this proposal. Its not been done before (on a footy bio) I don't think, but a topic of this size could do with it. We've had to trim the Messi article before, but your proposal would allow us to do that most effectively while still having sub articles to provide more club/international detail. Nampa DC (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s okay! Just be mindful in the future that on-page notices are part of the procedure of discussing proposed splits per WP:PROSPLIT, and that it’s not typically kosher to remove them before a consensus has been reached. — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with user behaviour

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I’m requesting some advice as to what course of action I should take in regards to two editors who have taken to personal attacks against me over disagreements on a talk page. In trying to reach some agreement over an issue, despite wording my arguments as politely and innocuously as possible, I’ve been told I’m lazy,^[1] been twice patronised for their perception of my knowledge of the subject matter,^[2]^[3] and even been given a very mean-spirited theory about my motives,^[4] all in a single talk page section. One of these editors and I had both previously been warned on civility for prior exchanges.^[6]^[7] I’m really tired and just want this to stop, so I can focus more on editing and not having to seek mediation and third opinions on every single issue because of a single editor’s staunch opposition to everything I do. — AFC Vixen 🦊 07:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned the user. Further attacks/harassment should be reported to WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and invite

Thank you for your contributions to women's ice hockey articles. I thought I'd let you know about the women's ice hockey task force, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's ice hockey. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Hmlarson (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Messi club and international career split

There is pretty much a consensus that your suggestion is a good one (should have been accepted the first time round). Given you put forward the proposal would you like to have a crack at it? Both sections are pretty well written and sourced so retaining them in a sub article works well, but obviously they need to be condensed in the main article with the size issue. Nampa DC (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently awaiting a closure of the discussion by a third party. — AFC Vixen 🦊 04:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think you should have added one to the Cristiano Ronaldo article too. That will help address the issues you raised in the banner at the top of the article. Thank you. Serrwinner (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm awaiting the Lionel Messi discussion to close. When it does, we can use it as a precedent for splitting the Cristiano Ronaldo article, too. — AFC Vixen 🦊 07:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Elite Rugby

Hi, thanks for creating the Women's Elite Rugby page. Just to let you know that the logo can probably be uploaded to WikiMedia Commons as it consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. Doing this means it will be able to be used across multiple articles. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now exported it to commons. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I'll keep that in mind in the future, too. — AFC Vixen 🦊 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rugby lineup simple

I fixed a little bug in this template. Don't know if that's going to help you use it or if it's no longer relevant, hut I thought I'd let you know. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Closure request on merge proposal

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I reviewed and closed the discussion you posted on wp:CR. -Lenny Marks (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too many at once

Way too many proposed deletions on the same day. 35. Geschichte (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a defined limit on how many proposed deletions an editor can make at once? I apologise if there is and that I had exceeded it – I wasn't aware such a limit existed. There's just so many of these articles about USL clubs that have been lying around for nearly twenty years in an unreferenced, stub state. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is way too many, AFC Vixen! Do you realize that each article tagged for any kind of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/CFD/etc.) has to be evaluated by other editors and admins? There is no reason these have to all be tagged at the same time when you could spread them out and do a few on each day of the week. And we have other editors who might untag them simply because they object to "mass-tagging". If this happens, then you'll have to bring them to AFD which requires doing a BEFORE which is a lot more work.

No, there is no upper limit, but just realize that tagging a page for deletion is the easy part and other editors/admins have to follow up on these taggings. Please pace yourself in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Is there a place, like a policy or guideline, where I had the opportunity to learn about this, though? Because the level of frustration in your words seems to suggest there was, and I'd like to at least know. I've withdrawn all but ten of the proposed deletions for now, and will proceed ten at a time until they're all deleted. Hopefully this'll alleviate the workload on admins reviewing the proposed deletions. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are calling PRODs "speedy deletion" but they aren't. Speedy deletion information can be found at WP:CSD which lists all of the accepted criteria for speedy deletion. You can find information about Proposed deletions at WP:PROD. They are very different forms of deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already understood this, yes. I merely miswrote the edit summaries and realised halfway through – hence why the latter half of my edit summaries omitted "speedy" from the summary. — AFC Vixen 🦊 07:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By my count, yesterday you took 15 articles to AFD in a 1 minute spell. Absolutely, totally inappropriate. Multiple editors have now raised concerns with your use of PROD and AFD and nothing is changing. Do we need to escalate this to ANI? Giant Snowman 18:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was literally told below to take it to AFD. What's inappropriate here is being met with anger like this for attempting to follow instructions to the best of my abilities. Please assume good faith... — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were advised to pace yourself - so did 15 in 1 minute?! C'mon now. This is so disruptive. Giant Snowman 21:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fairly assumed AFD, in which a group of users would take time to deliberate on the matter, is a different context to PROD, in which the workload of reviewing admins were the primary concern instead. I do not wish to discuss this matter any further with you, so please don't reply to this conversation further. Thank you. — AFC Vixen 🦊 21:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AFC Vixen,

Just a note to say that once a PROD tag is removed, it can not be "renominated" in the future. Articles can only be PROD'd once so if an article has been de-PROD'd and you are seeking deletion, you must take it to WP:AFD. Before you pursue actions on Wikipedia, please read the relevant policy guidelines (like WP:PROD) and that will outline what is and isn't possible. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You recommended that I "pace [myself]" and "spread them out and do a few on each day of the week", and I abided by this because I wanted to ease the workload on admins carrying out the deletions, as you said it would. Now you're saying I can't do what you said, because of policy. You had the opportunity to tell me this when I explicitly told you what my plan was, but you instead decided to comment on typos I made in my edit summaries. I'll go through the AfD process on the next round of deletions as you request, but sorry, this is the last time I'm discussing this particular matter with you. Being talked to with patronising language while being misled like this was very frustrating. — AFC Vixen 🦊 13:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at 2025 Australian Championship

Why do you feel the need to compact Football box collapsible templates when you update matches, such as at 2025 Australian Championship? Makes it harder to edit later. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the opposite way. I think the page overall is far easier to navigate in the editor view when the {{Football box collapsible}}s are much, much smaller in size. Having the different groups of parameters (left column, teams and score, right column) be presented on the same row as each other is also convenient for me – especially having |team1=, |team2=, and |score= being right beside each other to more easily identify which box is which. Though, I will concede that the citations for |attendance= make the row grouping right-column parameters difficult to parse at first glance. If you'd like, we could put that parameter in its own row to make the other three right-column parameters easier to spot. Otherwise, I don't see any issues with the other rows. — AFC Vixen 🦊 23:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not up to me to agree or disagree with you. Its just that there are thousands of competitions and hundreds of thousands of {{Football box collapsible}} templates that are nearly always NOT concatenated. You appear to be swimming against the tide of what is normally done. I don't think it contravenes WP:MOS because that's about the visible portion and not how the code is displayed, but I'll bet you'd get rapidly reverted if you tried that to an article on a major tournament like the FIFA World Cup. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I really couldn't care less about hypotheticals about other articles and other editors. I care instead about what your thoughts are about the way it's being used on 2025 Australian Championship, since you're the one that brought it up with me here. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its not hypothetical, have a look at most articles. Not compacted. Perhaps there is a reason for this. You are doing something different to most editors, and I think it makes it harder to edit not easier. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...okay? Again, I really couldn't care less about that. I'm asking what your opinion is. Why is it harder to edit in your view, and if you think what I proposed earlier is satisfactory. — AFC Vixen 🦊 06:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red cards displayed in football boxes for matches in lower tier domestic competitions

As you "disengage" from the talk page on WikiProject Football, I think you should reflect on the fact that if you had simply waited until someone had responded with information on where and why the antagonism that you experienced would not have occurred. If you had simply waited for someone to respond to my request, even just a few days, you would have liklely got people who would have provided that information.

Instead, before anyone responded, you decided to post about the need to have red cards and essentially kicked the ants nest, and set the tone for the discussion. that the deliberate omission of red cards on the basis of a league's position in a pyramid is arbitrary and baseless. So I think you got the reaction your commentary deserved. Hopefully, this will result in a summary being added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus - thats where I first looked for an answer to your original question, but I didnt have time or inclination to trawl through heaps of archive pages to find that answer. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not about to entertain somebody who's seriously going to tell me that I deserved antagonism for sharing an opinion on the issue that was being discussed. This is simply too far. Please cease posting on my talk page. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belated Wiki Anniversary Wishes 🎉

Dear AFC Vixen,

Your wiki anniversary was 16 days ago, marking 3 years (as per SUL) of dedicated service! I wanted to extend a heartfelt thanks for your amazing contributions. With over 4,572 edits, your dedication is an inspiration to the community. Wishing you all the best for the year ahead!

Use this Tool to send wiki anniversary wishes to other amazing Wikimedians.

-- : Suyash Dwivedi (💬) 09:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logos eligible for the Commons

Hi AFC Vixen,
Thank you for your diligent work in updating sports team articles as well as adding their logos. Just to let you know, some of the logos that you've been uploading recently can be uploaded to the Commons under a Template:PD-textlogo +Template:Trademark license. Logos that are comprised only of text and/or simply geometric shapes are not complex enough to quality for copyright (although may be eligible for trademarks). File:Los Angeles SC logo.svg, in my view, would be an extremely straightforward example of what I'm thinking of.
Images uploaded to the commons can be used in multiple articles (as opposed to typically just one for fair use images), and can be properly categorised on the Commons, making them easier to find. Examples of files eligible can be found in Commons:Category:Logos of association football teams of the United States for example.
You may be already aware of all this, but just dropping you a line instead you weren't.
Cheers, CeltBrowne (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I opt to play it safe and upload it locally with the relevant tags, as I've seen images in years past get taken down from Commons for far, far simpler shapes and designs. It begs the question though, do you have full confidence that the images you've copied over to Commons won't lose a proposed deletion if they're brought up? I'd be genuinely shocked if, for example, File:FC Naples.png and File:Athletic Club Boise logo.svg survived one. They're remarkably complex designs. The last thing I want to have happen is all these images get deleted, because nobody considered to move it back to Wikipedia instead, as I've also seen happen many times before.

Also, when you do copy the images, please copy the source information as well – you've failed to do so with a number of them, such as File:Sporting Cascades FC logo.svg and File:Los Angeles SC logo.svg, and I've since corrected those. [1][2] — AFC Vixen 🦊 08:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and be more accurate in future to sourcing.

As far as threshold of originality goes, I'm in the aggressive rather than the cautious camp. My own view is that editors are often times overly cautious around threshold of originality and too avoidant about debates of TOO. The worse case situation is that a logo is deleted from the Commons, but even if that happens, the logo can be brought back again under a fair use license (which I'm happy to re-add if the Commons version is deleted).

I think it's good to have the debate in "marginal" cases, because often times when I've had that debate, the image was kept rather than deleted. I think it's good for editors well versed in copyright to tease out if the elements are strong enough or not, rather than always assume TOO will apply. CeltBrowne (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll leave the responsibility with you, and trust that you and whoever else involved in potential future deletion discussions will be able to put everything back exactly the way it was, in case some of your attempts to carry over images to Commons fail. — AFC Vixen 🦊 08:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Athletic Club Boise.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Athletic Club Boise.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Los Angeles SC.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Los Angeles SC.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]