Commons:Deletion requests/Hoax roundels

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Hoax roundels[edit]

These roundels lack authoritative sourcing. They either have no source at all, or are souced to the "Roundels of the World" website, a website that no longer appears to work, had not been updated since the early 2000s, and which has been shown to be unreliable. None of these have been confirmed by actual photographic evidence, and are not shown on this website which is reliable and regularly updated. If they are hoaxes, we should not be hosting them and allowing them to be used in an official manner which is misleading. Fry1989 eh? 15:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a few different issues going on here. Some represent documented considered alternatives while others have detail errors. However, calling any a hoax would be wrong without evidence of them representing intentional deception, of which I found none. As such, I have added specific notes above to each one that I could find information on. A roundel which represents a documented alternative or contender should be retained, though its description should be updated to label it as such to avoid confusion with the officially adopted version. Some of these should definitely be kept and I have noted those above. As for others which are more questionable, I would recommend probably not deleting, but instead marking them as reported or proposed alternates and noting that they lack a reference as of the moment. We shouldn't delete solely on the basis that we cannot locate a ready photo or source, but instead simply flag them so another user with access to other sources may come along reference them. Also keep in mind that it is not uncommon in newly independent countries, especially with small or poorly organized air forces, to feature a wide variety of national markings on aircraft that never make it to the official documents. Thus my general input is to  Keep all, with notes added to each relevant to their specifics. Josh (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I have to agree with Fry on most to these files, they appear to be someones idea of an art project of something. - I've done extensive search(s) on the net for any evidence of their existence with no luck. - FOX 52 (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless of the outcome of this DR, I do believe we should work on ceasing unsourced roundels being used inappropriately, by adding disputed/no source templates to the infoboxes and also removing them from articles where they are currently being used. There are a few others I chose not to include in this DR at this time because I consider them probable. Fry1989 eh? 22:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The File:Bhutan roundel.png appears in Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide Fifth Edition. ISBN 978-0-06-134619-4 (in the US) Page 522 fifth row from top. Xufanc (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The white disk of File:Roundel of Bhutan.svg is too large. Xufanc (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fry1989: I agree with that sentiment completely. That is why I think each roundel file, including those that are completely official and undisputed, should contain detailed descriptions which include details of both de jure and de facto relevance. Users of images are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the images are used responsibly but we should offer the best assistance possible on the Commons side. I do not believe that the appropriate method is to police usage by deleting files to prevent inappropriate use of the files. It is not in the scope of Commons to determine usage, but merely to facilitate it. Josh (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The desire wasn't to "police", per se, but rather to avoid Commons/Wikimedia Projects furthering inaccurate information. We do host many fictional flags and I don't have any issue with that, because they're clearly labelled as fictional. With these roundels, the situation is more muddy. Fry1989 eh? 16:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: on Commons we usually delete images with copyright issues, vandalism or something out of scope. Inaccuracies don't lead to deletion here by themselves when images are used in Wikimedia projects. Here I see that they are used or they were used for later SVG versions that are used. So, inaccuracies are to be solved in Wikimedia projects, not here. I don't see any problem with copyright, significant part of them would be ineligible for triviality anyway. --rubin16 (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Hoax_roundels&oldid=574539001"