Talk:Flag of the Romani people
 | A fact from Flag of the Romani people appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 August 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
Wouldn't it better to be moved at Flag of the Roma people? bogdan
wheel meaning edit
I was told the wheel represented not India, but the nomadism, altogether with the grass and the sky. --80.39.157.239 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Flag dimensions edit
I need to clarify one thing. I drew the Roma flag based on existing drawings, including the previous version of File:Flag of the Romani people.svg, the one uploaded by user Sfu. The numeric dimensions don't come from any source, I just estimated them visually and simplified them to be mathematically pleasing: the linear dimensions make ratios of small integers and the 15° angle is two-thirds of the spoke angular period (22.5°). I uploaded File:Roma flag dimensions.svg just to show how I constructed the flag, not to imply that there is any established standard. As far as I know, there is no such standard for the Roma flag. I released the drawing into the public domain so anyone (including a flag standardizing body) is free to use it in whatever way they please.
As such, the figure with the flag dimensions should not be shown in the article. I made it up, so in terms of Wikipedia it amounts to nothing more than original research. — AdiJapan 07:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
"Formatting" references edit
Cdjp1: Please understand that formatting a random selection of references to your preferred format, and leaving the others to another format, is in no way an improvement of the article (neither is translating the titles of just a handful of articles in foreign languages; especially since the language format only makes some sense if the source is online). The last time I checked, formatting sources in such way was not obligatory, as long as the format used includes all necessary details (which it does); as a common courtesy, users were asked to adapt to the format already used in the text. I would not object if you were to change the format on all references, if that is like a major pet peeve of yours; but don't change the format just here and there, and then expect others to follow your lead and complete this tedious task for you. Tedious and, may I add, actually very straining: the reason why I, as the main editor of this article, did not format references is because the format requires a nearly-painful focus on my eyes -- presumably, on yours as well, which is probably why you stopped. But let's establish this as a main point: replacing one consistent format of referencing with two is in no way an improvement. Dahn (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)