This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Aircraft Marking (Roundel) here: [1], Military of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta Alinor ( talk) 09:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Yeah I see, hmmm...I have yet see to that Particular Roundel on any Iraq aircraft. Vega61 ( talk) 03:51, 16 August 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)
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)
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 a watermark running throught the photo. [ [6]] regards Vega61 ( talk) 22:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
I shall remove the "insignia" of Hong Kong Government Flying Service from the section "Current insignia of national air forces", for the following reasons:
-- supernorton 04:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Agreed A second roundel? never heard of such a thing, they should be kept out Jetijonez ( talk) 19:22, 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 enjoy Petebutt ( 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)
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).
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)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Aircraft Marking (Roundel) here: [1], Military of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta Alinor ( talk) 09:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Yeah I see, hmmm...I have yet see to that Particular Roundel on any Iraq aircraft. Vega61 ( talk) 03:51, 16 August 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)
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)
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 a watermark running throught the photo. [ [6]] regards Vega61 ( talk) 22:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
I shall remove the "insignia" of Hong Kong Government Flying Service from the section "Current insignia of national air forces", for the following reasons:
-- supernorton 04:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Agreed A second roundel? never heard of such a thing, they should be kept out Jetijonez ( talk) 19:22, 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 enjoy Petebutt ( 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)
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).
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)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)