Talk:Military aircraft insignia

Sovereign Military Order of Malta

See Aircraft Marking (Roundel) here: [1], Military of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta Alinor (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

South Africa's Historic Springbok Roundel

Could South Africa's old Orange Springbok over a white and blue circle roundel as seen in other places on wikipedia (like [[2]]) be added please? Invmog (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Letdorf (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

Iraq Roundel

Does anyone know if the Iraqi Rounndel Triangle is still gonna be current? Or has gone the way of Saddam and company? I'm thinking we should replace, with Iraaq Flag, which seems to be on all aircraft as of now. And move Triangle Roundel to the Roundels of the Past section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vega61 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus, yet one kind of Iraqi roundel is published here: http://www.aircraft-insignia.com/page13.htm Hellerick (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I see, hmmm...I have yet see to that Particular Roundel on any Iraq aircraft.Vega61 (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the images of new Iraqi eqiupment (T-6s and C-130s for example) show the national flag on the tail and "IRAQI AIR FORCE" on the fuselage but no roundels. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Iraqi roundel predated Saddam by a considerable margin - the squiggle is Arabic for Army and so is unlikely to be replaced anytime soon. I have seen the marking on aircraft received after the US invasion so any instances lacking the marking were probably either not painted yet, or for some special purpose.NiD.29 (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Roundels

Here are the sources for the South African, Serbian, and Moldovan roundels. South Africa's is all black for Low Vis: ><font color="002bb8"HERE and HERE. Serbia's: HERE, and Moldova's:HERE. Note that Moldova's, and with most roundels, uses the colours fromthe National Flag.Considering how poor moldova is, and how old that aircraft is, you have to take into consideration the age of application into the fading of the colours from what they should be. Fry1989 (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

South Africa has Gray Low Vis Roundels as see here [[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vega61 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have two sources(and can give many, many more), you have one. Fry1989 (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Souh Korean Roundel - here are two examples of current aircraft [[4]] [[5]] and while your example appears to right on the slipt color, its really awatermark running throught the photo. [[6]] regardsVega61 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've started you guys on adding these links into the article as refs, so that the designs here can be confirmed by outside sourdes. I suggest that if there's any dispute over a roundel in future, a ref be found and added to support the correct version.

The RNZAF roundels are a little inconsistent, BTW; the Kiwi faces right sometimes ([7][8]) and left other times ([9]). Is it supposed to always face the front of the aircraft? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the New Zealand roundel is to always face the front of the Aircraft. Fry1989 (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And facing "in" on the wings, as I recall? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Brunei Roundel

If anyone has any info or clear pics of the current Brunei Roundel, I would appreciate a copy for the Military aircraft insignia I've found sample of a new version here [[10]] and here Vega61 (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't strictly a roundel but the badge of the air force used in lieu of a roundel - still I'd like to see a high res version. Brunei did use a yellow/white/green/red (centre to outside) roundel but I am unsure if it is still in use.NiD.29 (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Tajikistan

Every source with any reference to the roundel of Tajikistan confirms it to be the one that is now in the article. I have also checked with Jane's military database; it is the correct roundel and there is no need for a citation tag. Mr A (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Roundels?

Kind a few insignias here with no source tags. This policy of verified info is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. I will see what I can dig up, but the "Roundels of the World" is an outdated source as of Apr. 11, 2006. Even the author refers to the magazine "Air Zone" which ceased publication back on 2003. I would suggest photographs would be the best bet. Just a thought E Bilko (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no roundel is a living person (though I could be wrong!) As such, I think we can afford to be less hasty in removing the "unsourced" roundels. Photographs are more akin to Original research,and are less authritative than published sources, even if those sources are dates. The information is still better than photographs for historical roundels that may have changed. Also, are you bothering to check the national airforce/military air arm pages? Most of them have links to their air arm's home pages, which generally include roundels somewhere on them, even historical ones. - BilCat (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, no need for haste in removing information. If it is in doubt or challenged then by all means tag it and let's see if we can find some refs. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes Bill I pretty sure that they are not living either (Roundel) I just thought that WP gets a bad rap for being inaccurate. And Yes I have check the air force/military air arm pages, and they all use the same image, in both articles. For the record I have tag with Citations. There are quite a few here with no or questionable source/ ref. (specifically the Current insignia. E Bilko (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already added sources for some and have found a ref that has a lot more early roundel history, I hope to add that as sourced text in the next few days. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Bit confused are just some of the roundels challenged or do we need soures for all of them? I have a 1960s book Aircraft Markings of the World 1912-1967 that could help if you need older ones. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't even delved into the former ones, but Mil they would be a great help. My concern comes in on (current) ones like South Korea (low Viz) two tone gray roundel, yet these pics tell a different story [[11]],[[12]], [[13]], now the one where the confusion may kick in, is with their water mark running through this pic [[14]]. The other deal is, and it maybe trivial some Low viz roundels show a Gray background (Canada, Greece, New Zealand) and ones like Norway, Portugal, Saudi Arabia have none. For me I would like to suggest, A blank (white) back round, as you would find if you ever bought a model plane kit, the decals would show the roundel, as is, with color on a blank background...food for thought E Bilko (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, given some of the decal sheets I've seen, I wouldn't call a model kit a reliable source! ;) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to add, that you can't just remove all-black low-vis roundels just because you have photos of grey ones. Both are used. For example, you removed the all-black one for Chile, but they use it, so please don't remove it. Fry1989 (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong Government Flying Service

I shall remove the "insignia" of Hong Kong Government Flying Service from the section "Current insignia of national air forces", for the following reasons:

• HKGFS is not a military air forces. The military force in Hong Kong is provided by the central government of China.
• It is not a national level flying service. (Hong Kong is NOT a nation!)
• The "insignia" is merely the emblem of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. No source can prove that it is equivalent to a military insignia.

--supernorton 04:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't seem to fit the subject of the article, does it? - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, the International Symbol of Civil Defence by definition doesn't represent a military force. Letdorf (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC).

I Disagree for the sake of insignias that represent all flying government service, which include Naval, Army, and international units of the UN & NATO I think the Hong Kong Flying Service is big enuff to allowed. The same argument can be made for the border patrol roundel roundel that have been put in. E Bilko (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Then this article needs a new title, because they clearly are not military. - Ahunt (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe a special section for insignias like NATO, EU Hong Kong etc...)...ehhh?? E Bilko (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Or a separate article like Civil government aircraft insignia. Given the article title, readers aren't going to look for this information here. - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The US Civil Air Patrol, NACA and NASA have all used military style insignias despite being civil organizations so could be included in such a page. Still looking for an EU roundel though.NiD.29 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Seychelles

I can't for the life of me find any true reference for an insignia or roundel for Seychelles. Yet here [[15]] and here [[16]] are pics of Air Seychelles Airlines, and it seems compelling to me, that the roundel used in Military aircraft insignia for Seychelles, is a fabricated fake, or just some good old fashion artistic thinking. Now there is this [[17]] but even the author of the website says "I tried to do my best to render the colours, even if it is very difficult to feel the real shades of colour of pages of magazines" but no other sources or references mentioned, other than "Air zone magazine", which ceased publication in 2003. And the website itself has not been updated since Apr. 2006. Finally here [[18]] this may since all, and here [[19]] which also isn't a verified source, but made shed a little light, says Seychelles hasn't operated a government aircraft since 1993. E Bilko (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Dont see any reason why the images of the Coast Guard Alouette should be wrong, they were former Indian machines and the roundal appears to be based on the Indian one with the fin flash reversed. MilborneOne (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have photos of some Seychelles Cessnas and an Alouette helicopter with a roundel similar to the Italian one that had the Seychelles flag on the tail. The wavy line roundel I haven't found any support for anywhere.NiD.29 (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Naval Insignias

Wondering if certain "Naval Insignias" really constitute an appearance in this article. Mainly naval insignia's from the counties of Italy, and Chile, they appear to have their national air force roundel already in play [[20]]'[[21]] And the anchor, is present but really isn't incorporated in to their roundels like in the Peruvian, Mexican, and Columbian navies. Thoughts? E Bilko (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• The anchor should absolutely be included, as they are part of the official insignia. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Oh, I see now. In those cases, yeah, it can be excluded - it's more of a fin flash. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• • I was just gonna say Bush..they seem more like a fin flash E Bilko (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed A second roundel? never heard of such a thing, they should be kept out Jetijonez (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the two pics. The Chilean marking is indeed on the fin, that makes it a fin flash. Now look at the Italian one. It's nowhere near the fin, infact it's ahead of the normal tricolour roundel. It is indeed a second roundel. It belongs here and here it will stay. "I never heard of such a thing" is not an acceptable reasoning. Wikipedia is a place to learn about things, including those you've never heard of. If we excluded things because of "I never heard of it", we wouldn't have anything on Wikipedia and it would be a very boring place. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That was sarcasm in case you missed it, because a second insignia sounds like a load to me. The Italian Navy's official insignia is the Red, white & green roundel. Now why don't you man up and respect other editors views. And keep in mind you are Edit warring at this point. Jetijonez (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How about you man up and respect what your own two eyes tell you. "Fin Flash" is a very strict term, and this marking is not a fin flash. Whether you've heard of multiple roundels or not, that is what this is. The opinion of one user who had about 20 sockpuppets doesn't deserve my respect, and another who would rather overlook reality for "I never heard of it" is what I would call misguided. Does this look like a fin flash to you? Does it look like it's anywhere near the fin of the airplane? [[22]], no it's not. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's on the fin or one fuselage, we only need to have one represent the service. As for Return fire^{Flank speed} you cannot speak for him. He concurred with the assessment of the puppet guy, and I too agree with the findings. This what has been set in place, which you cannot just change, cause of your personal POV. Gain consensus and you can change it. Jetijonez (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It does matter, for several reasons. 1: A sockpuppeteer forfits his votes of anything when he choses that course of behaviour. 2: Pictures don't lie. A fin flash doesn't get up and walk over to the front of a plane, therefore it is not a fin flash. 3: It's on the plane, so it belongs in "Military aircraft insignia". Clearly Italy uses their regular roundel for all services, and this as a secondary marking specific to their naval air service. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dude enuff with puppet person I'm not talk'n about him, but me and Return fire^{Flank speed} are two votes to your one vote! The Primary insignia is the tri colored roundel. Fry I don't even know why your even in this section, you obviously have no expertise in the area as you demonstrated with botched replacement of the Lesotho Roundel and the Greece Air force Roundel. Two roundels which were clearly inaccurate. You just go from place to place bouncing about, pulling pictures off Commons, and throwing them wherever. And you show ZERO research on the subject. that's not what WP needs. FYI I Flew for the Air Nat'l Guard for 7 years, so yeah I know what I'm talking about Jetijonez (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I know more about this than you think. It's not a "botched replacement", I was replacing the Sock's files, which should be done. I did it with existing files because I didn't have time to make new roundels. Meanwhile, you have problems yourself, which I can clearly point out. For example: File:Republic of China Roundel (Low Visibility) 1.svg you claim is incorrect. But it has two source pics, this one, which was my source for the file, and this one, which you tried to use as a source for your File:Low Vis Roundel of Taiwan.svg, even though it's clearly closer to my version. You try and force yourself where you think you're right, even when there are sources which contradict you. I on the other hand try and count as many sources as I can, and do roundels based on which way most of them lean. So lets see, we have one pic that sources File:Republic of China Roundel (Low Visibility) 2.svg, one pic (dispite you trying to claim two of them) that sources your File:Low Vis Roundel of Taiwan.svg, and two pics that source my File:Republic of China Roundel (Low Visibility) 1.svg. My version clearly has the most sources, and yet you insist on forcing your version. If you keep on forcing your way around here despite sources contradiction you, don't expect you and I to get along. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I say its looks like better not to have anchor roundel. should stay with air force roundel =) Ghost rider14 (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is consensus never respected here? The anchor is not a insignia Ghost rider14 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There are some naval insignias that I think shouldn't be included because they tell the viewer nothing about the nationality and only that there is a naval connection despite them being used in the place of normal national markings (indeed several countries use nearly an identical anchor in an identical manner such as Chile and Argentina. Italy, and Germany's marking is equivalent to a unit marking and should not be included here.

Now in the cases of the French Navy and the Mexican Navy - the standard marking is modified to include an anchor, so I would say the situation is a bit different - more like the situation with the Australian Army having just the kangaroo. National identity is retained, rather than being strictly a service identity but it is distinct from the standard marking. Latvia also used a second distinct roundel for national guard aircraft and the Peruvian army used to (they had a red triangle within a red disk spaced with white and used it on Mi-8's).NiD.29 (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Haiti and Liberia

I've moved the Haitian and Liberian insignias to the former section. The Haitian air force was disbanded in 1994, after United Nation sponsored forces came to Haiti to reinstall president Aristide [[23]] and Liberia's Air Force was formally dissolved in 2005 as part of the armed forces demobilization programme, though it had effectively ceased to exist many years earlier. Currently, only the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) operates military aircraft in Liberia, Mi-8s and Mi-24s based at Roberts International Airport. as per WP article Armed Forces of Liberia E Bilko (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Netherlands Low-Viz

Pic The colours of the roundel shown in this article don't look right and don't match the photo of Apache. DexDor (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait so this roundel, is wrong??? Jetijonez (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Finland Blue

I've found some different images regarding the Finnish Aircraft insgnia, and it appears the "Blue" is a few shades darker than it should be, as seen in these pics 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. I would like to gain a consensus from other editors, and suggest replacing the current roundel with this one Jetijonez (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And per the talk HERE, I feel because of the variation in many of th epics between lighter and darker, we should use the one that matches the flag. 23:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, there's a lot of variation in the roundels here. The one I think most closely matches what the roundel is supposed to be, though, is this one, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Judging by those photos, I'd say File:Finnish_air_force_roundel.svg has a more accurate shade of blue, on my screen at least. Letdorf (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

My thoughts exactly, that's what I see toJetijonez (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Just as a note, having noticed your edit on the article page - there is no "consensus" as of yet for one or the other. More people need to chip in (or not) for awhile first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Would like to reiterate that The Bushranger and Letdorfhave both selected lighter blue ring in the Finnish roundel, they just selected from to two different image files. So consensus is leaning light Jetijonez (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

agree very dark, lite better choice as I see in the photographs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost rider14 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I say again my vote is for they lite one. fry1989 I guess you don't understand the idea of majority rule. Ghost rider14 (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Galleries

I think I have sorted them now. Much better than scrolling ti;ll your fingers fall off. There are a few issues with the gallery template. only holding 30 images is one, and inexplicably refusing to show some images Unless in a new gallery. Hope youjh enjoyPetebutt (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Scrolling is still an issue, but mainly this plan is srewing up the "gallery templates" thumbs have been reduced, and only holding 30 images is one, and inexplicably refusing to show some images, is a bad idea(sure its in good faith) but if a ain't broke don't fix it!Jetijonez (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Fin flash be merged into Military aircraft insignia. Fin flash are certainly covered by the topic of this article, and there's not really much you can say about them that would justify a separate article. As for the gallery, a lot of these images aren't "fin flashes" per se, but actually primary insignia that happen to be displayed on the fin. IMHO, a fin flash is a secondary form of insignia that supplements the primary insignia displayed elsewhere. Letdorf (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

• Oppose. The Fin flash article was just spun off from this one; a list of fin flashes would make this page even more graphics-intensive as it is, while the statement that "a lot of these images aren't "fin flashes" per se, but actually primary insignia that happen to be displayed on the fin" is false. The roundel - which this page covers - is the primary insignia; the fin flash is indeed secondary, but notable and verifiable. Now, there might be a need to split off the roundels table(s) into Military aircraft roundels or something like that from this page, but that's another kettle of fish. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I second that as the creator of the Fin flash article; I see would be an "eye overload" on the sense. Besides it is still growing, with more info and additions on the way. Just takes time, between me and Fry1989 we can only work so fast. So be patient. As for an "Roundel" page we'll most insignia's are roundels, so I think it should stay put. Plus the fact that there are still some insigs. that need to be moved to the "Fin Flash" side such as Oman & Honduras, both clealy sit on the tail or fin to be exact Jetijonez (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On that, though, they serve both as roundel and fin flash - like the Red Star the Soviets/Russians used. Despite being on the fin they're also technically roundels. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so should we have them on both artcles? Jetijonez (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. They're more 'roundels' than 'flashes', I'd think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I maybe should have looked a bit harder before I claimed that some of these were primary insignia, but a lot of them definitely are just national flags, which again, IMHO, aren't fin flashes, strictly speaking. We also need to bear in mind the WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:Galleries guidelines for both these articles. In particular Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images. Unless the text of the Fin flash article can be expanded considerably using reliable sources, it would appear to be contrary to these guidelines. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

• Merge - can't see why it was spun off in the first place. Text is what counts not lots of pictures, and without the pics you're looking at a stub. You can illustrate fin flash placement on the aircraft tail only a few times before it gets repetitive and air force fin flashes belong in the articles for the air forces themselves if anywhere. Now if the actual textual content started to dominate this article I'd say spinout. Last thing; I will just add that at the moment the fin flash article looks more like "List of fin flashes" which might be a compromise position. GraemeLeggett (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge Fin flash is devoid of unique content, consisting entirely of a paragraph already in this article. The over-large gallery doesn't count, as articles shouldn't consist entirely of images as Wikipedia is not a plane spotters' guide. There was no real benefit to the split. oknazevad (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• OpposeI believe it gives people to see the differnce, of the two. Put them together, and I see an overload of information to people may see. Ghost rider14 (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Merge but with one consideration: I oppose of simply merging them to a single page, too many information for an article. If we build two different galleries of images and link to a single article, would be better.Zé Carioca (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The name of this article is military aircraft insignia - NOT military roundels. Fin flashes and rudder stripes are a significant section of military aircraft insignia and are included in every reference work I've seen.

Perhaps they could be included with the roundel, on the same graphic so the fin marking is in the upper right corner, smaller (say 50%) than the main graphic? Just a thought though I realize a lot of images would need to be changed to do this. I have seen this format used elsewhere and it worked well there.

Also perhaps the list of actual roundels could be spun off into a new page while this page is just the information on use and history, with a few examples to illustrate the topic? Finally anyone know of a page devoted to US Military aircraft markings? There is enough info for a page like the one for the UK but I was unable to find one. NiD.29 (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Roundel of the Sri Lankan Air Force.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Roundel of the Sri Lankan Air Force.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Low Vis: Russia and Taiwan

Fry my english is not the best, but you have confused even me with that mess you write. Jeti has it right. you our lost in the subject Ghost rider14 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

He does not have it right. He has forced his versions of roundels here as well, even when there are more sources for a different one. An example is Taiwan's low-vis version. Also, there used to be two versions of Taiwan's low-vis version on this page, but Jeti removed it saying we don't need to show them both, that one is enough. However, I don't see him complaining about the two low-vis versions for the United States being here. Or the two low-vis versions for the Netherlands being here either. But the of course, that's because he added them. Do as I say, not as I do, I guess. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well Fry1989 ^eh? you could argue that, except that the US low vis insignias show two different variations which is not just color but in line drawing, vs. solid drawing. Regarding the Netherlands, that a difference between the land forces earth tone, and their sky gray tones. Lots of countries have many shades in the same low vis roundel, I just see it as redundancy to show the same thing over again. And that's something I been told by many other editors, which is not to inundate an article with picture after picture showing the same thing. I'm surprised this article hasn't been deleted for gallery pics ruling over the article itself. Jetijonez (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm arguing, the same way you can argue that the US and Dutch ones are intrinsically different in other ways then just the colour shades. But you're removing of the Russian red star that is being used on the PAK FA I can not excuse. If it's in use, it deserves a mention (if you want to change the inscription from "low vis" to "experimental aircraft", that's fine by me). As for Tajikistan, there used to be a pic on Airliners.net showing a Tajik air force cargo plane. It had some sort of marking on the tail, but since the image resolution wasn't good enough to make it out, the pic is no longer on the site, and we have no other pics of the reported Tajik roundel, I have to let that one go until we can find a confirmation. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Only one problem with your logic, our own WP artical on the PAK FA T-150 says "The Sukhoi PAK FA is a twin-engine jet fighter being developed by Sukhoi OKB for the Russian Air Force. It is Not in the Russian Air for yet! And you even admitted in one of you Edit Summeries "Undid revision 447219299 by Ghostrider14 It has nothing to do with the PAK FA, I've seen this roundel on other aircraft, it's a Low Visability version of the normal Russian roundel" So if thats true then show some proof, a picture, and news artical....something. Jetijonez (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not illiterate, the use of BIG isn't needed. Second, I said I've seen it (not that I have pics of it), and I have been looking for those photos again (which takes time). Third, experimental or not, the Russian Air Force is now testing the PAK FA, and even if you don't believe me that I've seen it on other planes, the roundel is in use, therefore it should be mentioned. Now as for Taiwan, I'll lay it out very simple. We have 3 different versions of their Low-vis roundel observed, two with a single source, and one with 2 sources (ergo, I believe that if we're only gonna show one, we shoudl show the one with the most sources).

File:Republic of China Roundel (Low Visibility) 2.svg Black & White. One source: Photo

File:Low Vis Roundel of Taiwan.svg Grey & White. One source: Photo

File:Republic of China Roundel (Low Visibility) 1.svg Two-tone grey. Two sources: Photo 1 & Photo 2

The second file listed above is the version Jetijonez has forced here. First you tried forcing it by uploading it over the 3rd file on Commons (twice), and then by uploading it separately and pushing it here against discussion. Now there may be plenty of pics on the net showing this one and that one, and if you wanna take the time to count them al and use the one most shown,then fine. But using only the 4 sources that are collectively listed (by myself and Jetijonez) on these 3 files, the 3rd one is the one we should use. However Jetijonez, you clearly dont care about sources and agreement when it comes to the files you want to use, only when others want to chime in, because first you tried to force it on Commons by over-writing (with the summary "per sources!", completely ignoring the sources that were already on the file), and then replacing the one on this article with your version without a discussion. So yes, it's do as I say not as I do with you. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok Fry let me start by saying I DO like the Russian Low Vis Roundel, and I do want it in there, but we can't put things in there (article) until, they become adopted officially by an Air Force. That star could be a Sukhoi company logo idea, or maybe not. But until we have more sources, and/or if you can find a pic with that low vis star used on anther aircraft, then were in business. As for the Taiwan Roundel, I have adjusted it my commons file to reflect a proper shading. In regards to the center star/sun design I have made it white to show as if it was a transparent. This is what we have done with the other Low Vis roundels. I'm not trying to push anything here accept accuracy Jetijonez (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, whenever possible, we (or atleast I) have made the transparent sections of roundels actually transparent. Using white to simulate transparency isn't really that accurate. I could do that for Taiwan, but the problem with them is their roundels aren't transparent, as say the South African low-vis one is. For Taiwan, two specifically have the sun white, and the other a two-tone grey, so it wouldn't be right to make Taiwan's sun transparent. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK It looks transparent here in this Seahawk Photo and here in the E-2C. Regarding the All black roundel, I think it's a very dark, dark blue, which you can see here if you look next to the roundel there is a vertical yellow stripe outlined in black, which can give you a comparable to the blue in question. Here's another example of the darker blue roundel in direct sun light. Jetijonez (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn it why do they have to make it so hard. In this one I'm almost 100% certain it's black, but in yours with the other side fo the same helicopter, it looks like it may be an extremely dark blue. Grrrr, now I have a headache. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

LoL Sorry dude I would almoast agree with you, but thats the bad thing about these picrures hard to tell. Jetijonez (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

RAF roundel colors

To NiD.29 - I reverted your edit because, at least on this screen (which is a fairly new flatscreen), the centres of those British roundels are a very deep maroon - almost brown. I'm pretty sure red was the actual color? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe red was the actual color, but I do not have any sources to prove/disprove it.Meatsgains (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have sources. I've asked for them and he hasn't posted them. He also forced himself on Royal Air Force roundels. He claims the colours first used were very very dark, it's not just your screen Bushranger. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Refs already listed - if anyone had cared to look, instead of undoing everything I try to do, before I even have a chance to finish. The most common description of the red is brick red - and was the same colour as the primer used on RAF fabric covered aircraft and was definitely not a bright red. I cross referenced the FS numbers with a chart I have to produce the RGB numbers. I then verified the colours to be within the range seen on a large number of the best colour photos from the period I could find (to avoid the problems associated with colour shift). If you need further confirmation I can upload some colour photos (most of which were done by official RAF photographers). Restored aircraft and they are always subject to the whims of the owners when it comes to colour)

The ref is as follows: (his Hurricane book has the same info). - last = Franks | first = Richard | authorlink = Richard A. Franks | title = The Avro Lancaster, Manchester and Lincoln | subtitle = A Comprehensive guide for the modeller | publisher = SAM Publications | location = Bedford, United Kingdom | series = SAM Modellers Datafiles | year = 2000 | isbn = ISBN 0-9533465-3-6

I have other sources that back this up, however most are in the form of scans of single pages, and I don't have immediate access to the original books.NiD.29 (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What "colours set" are you referring to? Aside from being rude, you still have not responded and nowhere have you made any mention of the source for your colours. Colour chips from a bad scan found online is not a reasonable source. I have attached three images. Of all of the images I have of ww2 british aircraft, none show colours as washed out as fry has provided except a handful of poorly scanned colour chip palettes where it is especially difficult to determine the correct colour, there being nothing to reference.NiD.29 (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You accused me of being under the impression that you were doing this just for the hell of it, or that I thought you were vandal. My response on my talk page, which you are misappropriating here, says that what I think of you, or what you believe I think about you, doesn't matter. What matters is sources. As for the colours I am referring to, that is the set of colours currently used by the Royal Air Force for it's identification and markings. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the colours of everything else are reasonable - so it is reasonable to assume the colours on the roundel are too.

Very clear image with excellent colour balance

Peacetime blue on fin with wartime dull red, and wartime dull colours elsewhere. Note brown shade on overwing roundel.

Of course the photos you provided do have some age to them, which can be hard to determine the true color in question. If you look here, here, and here. These current photos may tell a different story Jetijonez (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with those images is that it is a restoration and the colours may not be matched properly. Indeed I can find dozens of restored aircraft that have the dull red roundels as per my assertion such as this Spitfire. That said I can lighten them a little (there is some leeway) but the colours that had been shown were so far off anything, something needed to be done.

On a related note I just finished the RN/FAA Pacific roundels with the bars as used on Corsairs and Avengers - which will require a coloured background because of the white border/bars - wondering whether people think if I should add a similar coloured background to all the images for consistancy, or just the one, or use an off-white instead of pure white for all the roundels, and there is a question as to whether all four RN roundels need to be covered (it will leave the text a bit sparse at that point), or if moving them to a single line might work...

The current colours used by the RAF are not in question - the colours have changed as dozens of references will attest - they went from bright prewar, to dull during the war to bright after the war - and the dull version was both darker and of a different hue than the bright versions. In addition the colours used for those files not only did not match the current colours, they don't even come close to the original colours, as per the refs I provided.NiD.29 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok first I hope your not referring to me as Fry, I'm little more level headed than that. Secondly I agree with your assesment, so now we need find a middle ground. Regards - Jetijonez (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You can call me quick to the trigger, but I had no way of knowing when you made the changes. I check my watchlist, I see unsourced claims, I revert them. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

just the one paragraph was to Fry1989. Np Fry - but it was a bit on the quick side and I saw no refs to begin with - and an accusation of vandalism when you haven't given me a chance to even finish my edits was a bit over the top. I've seen a lot of vandalism and most of it is either POV or just plain rubbish which my edits are not.

I have lightened and brightened the C.1 roundel pending replies - I can't go really bright as these are still supposed to be dark colours, however the "brick red" is now a bit less brick, and a bit more red.

Ignore the thumbs - when you look at the full size image the difference is noticable.

I tried to post larger thumbs of both current and original and aren't having any luck (the differences are hard to see on the tiny thumbs)- does anyone know how to do this - I was unable to find anything in the help files on posting a thumb for an earlier version of a file (I did ask at helpdesk but am still waiting for a response). As first uploaded, and As it now is.NiD.29 (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at them again now, the 1942-1947 one does look correct now; nice work. :) I'm dubious that the 1937-1942 one was that brick-red in the middle though, I've always seen it as bright red (same red as in the French roundel), I think? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I haven't changed the others yet - I was doing the C.1 first to get reactions, then the others later. I have photos that show the A.1 with both bright and dull colours (bright being more common on trainers, dull generally elsewhere), and even a mix - but all the refs I've found say the switch occured long before then.NiD.29 (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A proposal

Jetijones, you and I have disagreed on low-vis versions, and what ones to show or how many to show. How would you feel if we had a separate section for low-vis roundels showing them all, in all their variations. Considering we know of 3 versions of Taiwan, 2 versions now for Norway, and multiples ones for others, it would make sense to me. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's getting a little redundant, besides after extentisive seaching I could't find this roundel in the dark gray. But there is this ....Also let me remind you I have showed you the 2 differnt version of Taiwan Roundel, as per our thread from earlier this year .... OK It looks transparent here in this Seahawk Photo and here in the E-2C. Regarding the All black roundel, I think it's a very dark, dark blue, which you can see here if you look next to the roundel there is a vertical yellow stripe outlined in black, which can give you a comparable to the blue in question. Here's another example of the darker blue roundel in direct sun light. Jetijonez (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn it why do they have to make it so hard. In this one I'm almost 100% certain it's black, but in yours with the other side fo the same helicopter, it looks like it may be an extremely dark blue. Grrrr, now I have a headache. Fry1989 eh? 22:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In short we should keep it simple, lighten up the other Norway roundel and will used that one, or find some edvidence a dark one. Jetijonez (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Jetijones, I can assure you I don't edit or make any roundels without a source. The other Norwegian low-vis roundel has a source, I will just have to find it again. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, in the future you may want to just throw in Source info in "Source Section" when creating or implementing a file Jetijonez (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, there are sources for the other version. I see no reason why we shouldn't show all versions that an air force uses. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I showed you the exact same plane in my earlier reply and I Quote "after extentisive seaching I could't find this roundel in the dark gray. But there is this "...again its thats getting redundant. Jetijonez (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the exact same thing. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Former insignias

Any editors out there have any source or testimonial info on some of these former insignias? One's like Kingdom of Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, or Rep. of China (1916–1920) to name a few. Seem to be short on any data and/or the links provided are dead or lead to no real proof their existence. I've tried some of the usual places, but have turned up empty. Jetijonez (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have several photos showing Kingdom of Afghanistan insignia however it is oval rather than circular. The image I have of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan roundel is too low res but is in colour - a shot of a Hind flyby - but it did exist. I have a problem with the Islamic State of Afghanistan as it appears to no more than a badly faded version of the standard roundel, when images I have that are labelled as being theirs are pure roundels with 4 disks - the center is always white and the other rings are black/green/orange in whatever order the painter felt like doing them - fading is rampant so wrecks often only have the black and white left. They were based on the Soviet Afghan roundel, minus the star - proportions are all over the place, either using the thin rings of the Soviet roundel, or using proportions similar to the RAF A1.

China is much better covered and I have a half dozen photos that confirm that roundel was used on 12 Caudrons of various types bought in 1913. The best book source for the Chinese roundel is "A History of Chinese Aviation" by Lennart Andersson though it only has one poorly rendered photo that doesn't show the shading well enough to work from. Colours are based on the flag of the period.

Email me and I will send you what I have for all three.NiD.29 (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Super Nid, if you can add any of this info to insignia's that would be great. I know some of the source info comes from books, so I'll see if I can find any sites linking them. Jetijonez (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried sending through wikipedia but it tells me "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address." The page to do send email is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser (I've received emails through this system before). NiD.29 (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nid I don't need the sources, just put them into the petaining Insignia file. Jetijonez (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

They are not book sources but scans of images - are you saying they can be hidden within an .svg file? - or just to upload them to wiki? If they can be embedded I will try that tomorrow.NiD.29 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I would say try uploading 'em on commons, with all pertinent info...author, book publisher etc. and then maybe we can use that for a source Jetijonez (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The one tagged as a former Australian one is actually the RAF (Including the RAAF) version used in later WW2 to avoid confusion with Japanese aircraft. I don't think Australia had it's own version until after the war - all the commonwealth nations just used the RAF/RN insignia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.201.199 (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

According to this source it show it as an Aussie Insig. I think the confusion is a result of the RAF had a light blue on dark blue seen here, and the Aussie aircraft had white on dark blue.--‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 04:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

To add further to the confusion, RN carrier based aircraft used a similar blue and white roundel on aircraft operating with US forces late in the Pacific - though those usually had white bars or odd proportions, while the RAAF version simply had the red overpainted with white (particularly the A type roundel, a variant that seems to have been unique to the RAAF).NiD.29 (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't have any RSs to hand, but AFAIR, the RAF did also used blue/white roundels in the Far East, later replacing the white with lower-visibility pale blue. See this forum thread which concurs with my understanding. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC).

Hah! After hunting around for every type used in that theatre, I just found a shot of what you indicate - however it was from the RAF C/C1 type roundels (1:2 and 4:8:9), and not the type A (3:5) or type B (2:5) roundels used by the RAAF who also painted out the red of the fin flash so not exactly the same, but it should be done up for the RAF roundels page (tomorrow). It was on a Curtiss Mohawk Mk.IV (P-36), but it retained the yellow outline on the fuselage. here is a shot showing two variations - note that the red is still visible on the rudder, ruling out the roundel colours being washed out - too bad the wing roundels cannot be made out. I found a profile and a painting of the same thing before I found the photo. I also have a shot of a Hudson with Type A1 roundels with the red dot missing and the yellow retained (3:5:7) but cannot be sure if it is still in the US as it looks new. A proper reference would be handy though so if you can recall where someone wrote about it in a book (and not a discussion board) that would be good.NiD.29 (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded modified roundel and added cats for roundels of the uk/raf and added to raf roundels page.NiD.29 (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

RAF_roundel.svg

There's a typo in the SVG, causing it to render incorrectly on Chrome and Firefox. The header includes an incorrect "heigth" attribute, which should be "height".

Here's the correct version:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="600" height="600">
<circle cx="300" cy="300" r="250" stroke-width="100" stroke="#00247d" fill="#FFF"/>
<circle cx="300" cy="300" r="100" fill="#CE1126"/>
</svg>

Roundel_of_the_Croatian_Air_Force_1941.svg

The rendering is incorrect, caused by mistakes in the SVG (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_of_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia). Here's the corrected version:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<svg xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"  xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1" width="600" height="600">
  <g transform="translate(0,-452.36201)">
    <path d="m 47.525221,490.53281 510.533199,0 c 0,-0.6063 0,299.52904 0,299.52904 0,37.5927 9.7016,134.60623 -61.8458,174.62434 C 450.13131,990.15209 359.1809,984.08857 303.3982,1019.2559 246.40279,984.08857 156.66533,990.15187 110.58393,964.68587 39.036621,924.66786 47.525221,827.65455 47.525221,790.06185 c 0,0 0,-299.52904 0,-299.52904 z"        style="fill:#ffffff;fill-opacity:1;stroke:#dd0000;stroke-width:7.27601004;stroke-opacity:1" />
    <path d="m 353.5752,491.87163 0,102.93752 100.65621,0 0,-102.93752 -100.65621,0 z m 100.65621,102.93752 0,100.65626 102.18761,0 0,-100.65626 -102.18761,0 z m 0,100.65626 -100.65621,0 0,100.65626 100.62501,0 0,100.65631 95.37501,0 c 3.4389,-9.049 5.8697,-18.3399 7.5938,-27.5626 l 0,-73.09371 -102.93761,0 0,-100.65626 z m -0.0312,201.31257 -100.62501,0 0,101.37505 c 34.26471,-9.45024 70.50441,-13.10154 100.62501,-21.34384 l 0,-80.03121 z m -100.62501,0 0,-100.65631 -100.65621,0 0,100.65631 100.65621,0 z m -100.65621,0 -100.65636,0 0,80.03121 c 30.1206,8.2423 66.39171,11.8936 100.65636,21.34384 l 0,-101.37505 z m -100.65636,0 0,-100.65631 -102.812509,0 0,73.09371 c 1.722,9.2227 4.1279,18.5136 7.5625,27.5626 l 95.250009,0 z m 0,-100.65631 100.65636,0 0,-100.65626 -100.65636,0 0,100.65626 z m 0,-100.65626 0,-100.65626 -103.718709,0 0,100.65626 103.718709,0 z m 0,-100.65626 100.65636,0 0,-102.15626 -100.65636,0 0,102.15626 z m 100.65636,0 0,100.65626 100.65621,0 0,-100.65626 -100.65621,0 z" style="fill:#dd0000;fill-opacity:1" />
  </g>
</svg>

Angola-roundel.svg

The file SVG header is missing a height declaration of the canvas. Here's the corrected version:

<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="470" height="470">
<circle cx="235" cy="235" r="234" fill="#CE1126"/>
<path d="m1,235a117,117 0 1,1 234,0a117,117 0 1,0 234,0A234,234 0 1,1 1,235"/>
<path d="m160,336 75-231 75,231-197-143h243" fill="#f9d616"/>
</svg>

Roundel_of_Angola_1975.svg

The SVG header tag is missing the height declaration of the canvas. Here's the corrected version:

<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="300" height="300">
<circle cx="150" cy="150" r="125" stroke-width="50" stroke="#CE1126"/>
<path d="m91,231 59-181 59,181-154.7-112h191" fill="#F9D616"/>
</svg>

== Roundel_otto.JPG ==

The SVG file is missing, only a low res JPG. Here it is:

<pre>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.0" width="1200" height="1200">
    <rect width="1200" height="1200" x="0" y="0" stroke-width="100" stroke="#FFF" fill="#000" />
</svg>

Upper_Volta_roundel.png

The SVG is missing, only a low res PNG version. Here it is:

<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN"  "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" version="1.1" id="TAF_Roundel_svg" width="600" height="600">
<g transform="translate(300,300)">
<circle r="300" fill="#DA0000"/>
<circle r="200" fill="#FFFFFF"/>
<circle r="100" fill="#000000"/>
</g>
</svg>

Roundel_otto.JPG

The SVG file is missing, only a high res JPG. Here it is:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.0" width="1200" height="1200">
    <rect width="1200" height="1200" x="0" y="0" stroke-width="100" stroke="#FFF" fill="#000" />
</svg>

Current information

A perennial problem here on Wikipedia is almost total lack of info on what is portrayed as "current." Being an aviation guy, I see that constantly as to Brand X air forces' equipment and organizations. Same with this insignia page. "Current" as of when? Is there a way to apply a header saying "As of..." ? Then presumably it could be updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.35.200 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Current should not be used at all as this is an encyclopedia it has no meaning, as you say if needed they should be dated from 1952 1966-2001 or the like. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Libyan roundel

The prevailing roundel seems to be this one - centered off these images [24][25] [26] [27] [28] And circulated on various airframes. Input? - FOX 52 (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs

On 4 December 2018, I added the insignia used by the aircraft of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in the period 1918-1919. This was deleted by user FOX 52, with the comment that the "insignia has no source - reference notation". I am not sure what is meant by this, because the image I used https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SHS_aero_1918.png discloses a source and a reference that it is an image based on photos from the article "Carinthian Air War" in the magazine Insignia, winter 1995. This reference can be independently verified by accessing a copy of the relevant publication through https://insigniamag.com/05_publications.html. Other images on this page don't all have references noted. As a consequence, I've added back the insignia used by the aircraft of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in the period 1918-1919. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zixt2010 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

As at 17 Aug 2019, the image for the the insignia used by the aircraft of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in the period 1918-1919 dropped off this page, so I inserted it again. Zixt2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.150.41 (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Back in 2018, I updated the insignia used by the aircraft of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in the period 1918-1919. On 17 August 2019, user KylieTastic KylieTastic deleted this citing “Revert - not a recognised image file - Note images must be uploaded WP:UPIMAGE (copyright allowing)”. I can confirm that I created the image and there are no copyright issues. I have now restored the image to the list. Zixt2010 —Preceding undated comment added 07:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a recognized image file means it either never got uploaded properly, or was corrupted, which has nothing to do with copyright. Seems to be ok now, however due to the simplicity, this should have been created as a .svg vector graphic rather than a raster (bitmap type) image, and will likely be replaced in fairly short order. - NiD.29 (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Montenegro-Airforce-Montenegrin-Roundel-Low-Visibility.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

a mess in the section ,,Current insignia of national air forces,,

Gallery at the end of the page is very long and its order is difficult to understand. I grouped the roundels by countries and continents and used {{Hidden begin| expanded = | title = Image gallery. these were cosmetic changes

I also added a roundel of Bhutan because that country has two helicopters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.192.68.53 (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hidden shouldn't be used in article text for reasons given in WP:DONTHIDE. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Please understand that not all editors think that putting everything in tables is a good idea in general. This has been a simple gallery in alphabetical order for years, and no discussion has ever been had about reorganizing it, much less consensus. So while you're welcome to discuss options on how to improve the page, please don't put back the tables without a clear consensus here to use them. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Aside from some grievous errors (the USMC insignia is not a national marking but a unit marking which was never even standardized, and the dates are wrong for the WW1 roundel) and a lot of omissions, which, even if correct would then only duplicate another page, whose link was removed - List of air forces that lists all markings with more detail. The point of the gallery on this page was to provide a quick overview, and perhaps even that is too much. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Fin flashes

Per the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fin flash, Fin flash is to be merged with Military aircraft insignia. This has been done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

New layout/format

I saw that the Russian Wikipedia version of this page has a much nicer format and overall feels a lot cleaner, I'm not an expert in doing formatting so I wanted to ask for opinions and some help changing it. NorthTension (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Afghan current roundel?

Is it possible to add this file File:IEA-AF roundel.svg into this page? I made this file based on the Taliban emblem based on actual image [29] and by that it is proven that the Taliban Afghan regime is (at least) using this roundel.
And according to Oryx some of the Taliban aircraft is still usingthe republican-era triangle roundel. Should we re-add it instead of placing it permanently in the historical section?  Hwi.padam   05:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)