Talk:List of flags of Vietnam

Unofficial flag of Haiphong

The sources listed on the image are:

Tham khảo / References (báo = newspaper, ảnh = photograph):

• Báo VTV; ảnh.

• Báo Dân Việt; ảnh.

• Báo Người Lao Động; ảnh.

Unofficial flags aren't "fake" flags, rather they are cultural flags and it was sourced in the image. Also the user who uploaded it isn't a sockpuppet "Unserafahne". --Donald Trung (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

"Confirmed sock of Musée Annam by a Steward"

@63.73.199.69: There was no confirmation, the steward simply took what user "Nguyentrongphu" said at face value, in fact, it's very suspicious that you edited here right after "Nguyentrongphu" (who is banned here) wrote this message. This would be evasion. There was consensus to put it and a number of other listicles include misattributed and fictional flags, in each case you removed a sourced flag which also stated that the flag wasn't real. For example, the Haiphong flag above is an unofficial flag and was listed as unofficial, these flags clearly fit the inclusion criteria of the article. --Donald Trung (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

IP user @63.73.199.69, what happened in Viet Wikipedia is a result of improperly investigation. Not even investigation, they just banned me immediately after accusing my account as puppet. Now let’s get this straight, those Misattributed flags are (surprise surprise) misattributed flags. They are made up by someone and since then have been presented as true flags of the past states. This section has existed before I am, and is there to let people know they are “misattributed flags”.

I don’t just show up and upload them more, I asked.

For the flag of Haiphong and RVN Police Flag, check the sources before running your fingers. — Daeva Trạc (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that it might be better to also copy the sources used for the files into the article itself, as many people don't check the file sources and just assume "this must be Musée Annam so it must be fake" and restoring the removed items with the proper sources would probably be the correct thing to do here. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, I didn't see your earlier comments, for over 5 (five) years I have not been able to see any pings or mentions at the English-language Wikipedia, so if you want to discuss something with me it might be wise to write it down here and then put a notice on my talk page that you've left me a comment elsewhere. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I did put the sources there, but that IP still deleted it. I added more sources now, and hopefully, they will discuss what they think is wrong here. – Daeva Trạc (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Daeva Trạc, well, we invited them to discuss things here as they claimed that there was "no consensus", let's just hope they'll engage in discussion before making such claims again. But one thing I learned is that sources at the Wikimedia Commons-only will often be overlooked because people simply don't see a source here and will think that it's unsourced. It's always better too have too much than not enough. So far, there haven't really been that many additions to this list in a while so I think that it's actually "mostly complete", which is always good news. — Donald Trung (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)