Talk:Roundel

Praise

A very good article Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

 Low visibility markings removed the white from surfaces.

Can someone explain/elaborate on this statement? - Hinto 00:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fountain

That's one lame fountain. I guess I'll have to learn (some) SVG source format to make a better one. —Tamfang 21:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are roundels round?

It seems there is some dispute about this point, so it would be good to hear other WP opinions on this question. At least one online dictionary [[1] says roundels are round, so do other shapes (stars, squares, crosses, etc.) belong in this article under "Roundel"? Jack Bethune 19:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, roundels are round. However, note that the Brazilian "roundel" contains a round shape. Other recently removed items do function to identify aircraft, but it is not clear that they qualify as "roundels" in any sense that I've heard the word defined. --EncycloPetey 20:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC) (Heraldry geek and Wiktionary admin)[reply]

In the strict heraldic sense, yes, but in terms of air forces, and particularly common usage, the term roundel has expanded to include insignia of different shapes other than exactly circular. Just look at two of those you have left in; the USAF and Brazillian ones. Neither is technically round. Also take a look at the roundel of the Mexican Air Force. It's not round, but it clearly follows in the same vein. If we were to exclude non-round roundels, we'd have to have a page with some unwieldy title like National military aircraft fuselage marking that no-one would think of going or linking to - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Even if perhaps not strictly correct, roundel is colloquially close enough, and is certainly in use: [2],[3] and [4]. --Scott Wilson 20:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an citation of the word "roundel" with this meaning? Not only would it support your view solidly, but it would be a useful addition to the content of Wiktionary's entry for that word as well. If not, then I think a separate gallery page for military aircraft insignia would be a good idea -- it might be a good idea either way, in fact. --EncycloPetey 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than examples of usage, I'm afraid not - believe me, I looked - though I can't find any sources that explicitly insist those on aircraft must be round, either. Hence, we should leave the non-round ones in; they obviously fall within the same 'box' as round roundels. Otherwise, there's a risk we'll just split silly hairs - the USAF roundel is not round, but is included because a major part of it is a circle. Does that mean we should include the Macedonian Air Force's alternate marking, which, according to Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide, is identical to their flag, as it too has a circle in it? The problem I have with a totally separate page for military aircraft insignia is that it can also cover a wide range of other markings - fin flashes, serial numbers, squadron designations and so on. I'm not saying that it's a bad article to have, but we can't just redirect this page to there, as there's the heraldic definition to cater for. We should leave in non-round roundels. I've shown that, at least for some organisations, the term can be applied to non-round symbols; when people come to Wikipedia, they'll be looking at this page; not national military aircraft fuselage marking or anything else. --Scott Wilson 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'd say we need the opinions or research of more contributors. --EncycloPetey 22:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone comes up with a published definition of roundel that includes shapes other than "mostly round," the examples accompanying this definition should match the article's own definition. Jack Bethune 15:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Germany and the U.S.S.R. used roundels that were not even close to round. The Germans used a Maltese Cross and the Ruskies used the Red Star. L0b0t 15:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they shouldn't, at least not in this case, because that would be Wikipedia proscribing a particular point of view. As per [5] - a verifiable, reliable source - that logo is a roundel, and hence is valid for inclusion in this article. --Scott Wilson 15:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fancy book about flags (ISBN 0070590931 Flags: Through The Ages And Across The World by Dr. Whitney Smith) defines roundel as "An emblem of nationality employed on military aircraft and air force flags, generally consisting of concentric rings of different colours." Then the book gives several examples that are square (Polond, Turkey, Honduras), Star (U.S.S.R.), Shield (Chile), Cross (Fed. Rep. of Germany), and Nepal which is 2 triangles on top of eachother. L0b0t 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation added, non-round roundels replaced. L0b0t 16:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the examples given in your fancy book about flags, a "roundel" is by definition circular [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Whether it has to be composed of concentric rings is arguable; for instance the Irish Air Corps insignia is often referred to as a "boss", rather than a roundel.[11]. As this article is specifically about roundels, and not national insignia in general, I'd say the insignia that aren't entirely circular are off-topic here. Letdorf (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Furthermore, the description "circular disc" in the opening sentence of this article is tautologous. A disc is already circular. 222.152.170.116 (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The terms used in aircraft marking - roundel, boss, etc., come from heraldry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.71 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RAF Targetting

Am I the only one who finds it odd that the RAF paints big targets onto the sides of their aircraft? ;) 70.20.136.170 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've wondered the same thing. 82.45.208.144 21:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the French got first choice -- exactly the same as their cockade (or cocarde), blue-filled circle in the middle. The Brits had to put the red-filled circle in the middle to stay true to their national colors -- and then they specified it as being a duller, postal-box red, and a more somber blue than the French colors. 173.162.253.101 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Roundel

Can anyone confirm the use of this roundel by Iraqi forces? I only find images using the triangle; as of yet, I have failed to find a photo using the roundel on this page... Scotishman (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having heard nothing, I have reverted back to the previous image of an Iraqi roundel until proven otherwise. Scotishman (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:BMW Logo.svg

The image Image:BMW Logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Republic (1931-39)

I miss the red-yellow-purple Spaniard Republican Air Force's roundel, although it was all but discontinued by the Republican Air Force in the Civil War (1936-39)in favour of wing & fuselage red stripes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old "Finnish" Roundel

I find it highly unlikely that Finland used a swastika from 1918 on, prior to Nazi Germany's use of the symbol. Not removing it atm, but source? -LlywelynII (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/index_en.php?id=624 -130.76.32.16 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here: [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.44 (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

I propose the parts of this article regarding military aircraft insignia should be split out into a new article, Military aircraft insignia, leaving only a brief summary of the usage of the term "roundel" in this context. This would resolve the roundel/not-a-roundel debate and also provide an article where all forms of insignia (including fin flashes, rudder stripes etc.) can be described. Letdorf (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I support splitting. Many air force insignia technically are not roundels, therefore the current organization of the article is misguiding. Plus, it will allow us to have more adequate interwikis. Hellerick (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also support a split, as these really are 2 separate topics, one about the heraldic device, which is always rouund, and one about the military insignia, which may or may not be round.oknazevad (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Letdorf (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Non-military examples

It seems to me that the Target logo is derived from targets like the ones used in archery, and the similarity to roundels is only superficial. Maybe this is not the best example to use, then? 84.198.246.199 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you are right, in that the inspiration for the Target logo is a archery/shooting target, the form it takes is a classic example of a roundel as a heraldic device, so it serves as a good example of a roundel in common, non-military usage.oknazevad (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

`

swiss roundel needs redesign

the correct swiss roundel is described in the talk of the file.--Tellsgeschoss (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged French roots of roundels on warplanes is well dodgy

It reads:

"The French Air Service originated the use of roundels on military aircraft during the first World War"

But the citation link seems dead. All one sees is an archived info bubble pop-up thingy. Whomever the "RFC" are, the bubble reads: "RFC followed the example of their French allies" even if true, and say the British(?) followed the French, this does not been the French were the first to use roundels on military aircraft. Anyway, the citation is highly unreliable and the link seems to of been pulled. It never seemed the strongest citation in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.57.38 (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC (the Royal Flying Corps) was a predecessor to the British Royal Air Force, and yes, the French were the first military organization to use roundels (with a specified diameter of 1m) - hence the name, which is from French, but I am sure another source can be found, even if that one IS working, and is reliable even if a bit brief.NiD.29 (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word roundel is not from French at all, but either Old French or Anglo-Norman. The cognate in Modern French would be rondeau(plural rondeaux).

Nuttyskin (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colors of French Roundel seem off

The French roundel that heads-off the page seems to have been made from the British RAF color palette. I always remember the French roundel as having "happy" wax-crayon-box red and blue, while the British hues are always more somber, both of them. 173.162.253.101 (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The colours are dependent on period and the aircraft upon which they are used - I have seen everything from a pale greenish blue, through greyish blue to dark blue, although the current variation is more toward to grey end of the specrum - the roundel's blue is much too purple, so I modified it based on the colour the Armee de l'air used on its logo.NiD.29 (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

SSC Neapel.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: History of Modern Design

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2024 and 5 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lunanomah (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Antje Gamble (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

modern design

By combining design elements (such as simplicity, continuity, typography, contrast, and visual impact) with Gestalt principles (proximity, similarity, closure, and figure-ground), …

Seems to me simplicity, continuity, visual impact are desired qualities, rather than elements. —Tamfang (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]