Talk:Triskelion

Is it a good idea to have a white supremacist flag on here? http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/za%7Dnaz.html I'm not really sure what wikipedia's conventions are regarding this. I just thought I would bring it up. -- 23:17, 7 October 2006 204.52.215.80

Actually, it is factually the AWB's emblem, and it is factually a Triskelion. Wikimedia Commons handles the issue by adding a {{Nazi symbol}} template to the individual image description pages (as seen at Image:Three sevens.svg), but does not otherwise exercise any censorship.

But as I've rearranged and added images to this page, I've put a few of the "ugliest" (literally or metaphorically) right at the end of the gallery... AnonMoos 04:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Phantom flags of Ryūkyū

For Image:Flag of Ryukyu.svg, AnonMoos (talk · contribs) replaced the caption "Phantom flag of Ryūkyū, a Wikipedia hoax" with "Claimed flag of the Ryukyu Kingdom (-1875)"[1]. To keep this caption, s/he needs to show who claim the date 1875, other than fellow Wikipedians and websites influenced by Wikipedia.

This file owes much of its notability to the fact that it is a Wikipedia hoax. As I explained at the image description page, we now have an external source that criticizes Wikipedia for spreading misinformation on this subject. --Nanshu (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

1) This is Commons, not Wikipedia. 2) The place to iron such issues out is en:Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom and similar.

This gallery is more about visual appearance than exact historical authenticity... AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't propose the removal of the flags from this gallery. I don't dispute the visual appearance either (I did elsewhere). We are talking about the caption. Of course, I am fully aware that this is Commons. But, regardless of where you put it, an inappropriate caption is inappropriate.

I did serious research on this subject but I have no idea where the date of 1875 comes from. It can only be traced back to our fellow Wikipedians. Again, to keep this caption, you must find a reliable source. --Nanshu (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is Commons, and such footnotes are generally not required here (except in certain limited specific circumstances)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You dodged my question again. I didn't propose to add a footnote here. The Commons loose verifiability policy does not mean we have a right to say anything untrue. We have the very reason to doubt your claim. Now that your claim is challenged, you have two choices: defend it with reliable sources or give it up. --Nanshu (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Nanshu is disrupting here as he is trying to at the English Wikipedia over his own perceived understanding of what may or not have been a flag used by the Ryukyu Kingdom.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

We can do on the File page whatever is Commons consensus. Alleged filename errors can be fixed, but moving files is also disruptive (remember, there may be many links to them, so we would want a move to be supported by consensus first, not later. Or we can end up with quite a mess, requiring massive cross-wiki editing to fix.

Nanshu, your comment is uncivil. You are not in charge of what AnonMoos can and cannot do. You cannot force the user to choose from a limited range of options. Drop the attitude, and start to work for agreement. You do not create agreement by telling others they are wrong, not just like that.

You were correct to raise an issue, but not to assert "hoax," in the presence of any disagreement, and you knew there was disagreement.

For the purposes of this page, "Claimed flag" is adequate, because it is obviously fact that there is a claim. Yes, simply that it's on Wikipedia is a claim. It might be a hoax, it might be real. So what? "Claimed" is not false. Period. You have noticed that Commons is different from en.wiki, Nanshu, but you are demanding proof, which would probably be reliable source. That's not our standard. Our real standard is consensus. Join it, okay, help create it, okay? The mission here is images, not truth. We will avoid what is misleading, and if we must exclude truth to avoid useless controversy, we will. Got it?

Ryulong, please consider that Nanshu is a newcomer here. Don't bite the newcomer! Yes, he's doing something disruptive. He's been warned. Now, let's welcome this user and hope he can become productive here. Calling attention to a possible error is productive. Revert warring, crying "hoax," all that, not. Thanks.

Thanks for adding "Claimed," AnonMoos. That is probably a consensus resolution here, unless Nanshu really wants to push. I don't advise that. --Abd (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

identical shields

These two are identical to all appearances, though the images are separate files.

• Coat of arms of Dukla, Poland
• Coat of arms of Zakliczyn, Poland

Are these correct?

They also are immediately adjacent, which makes their sameness glaringly obvious. --Thnidu (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

See en:Trąby coat of arms... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)