![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Guys, someone has mistakenly added this template to the article on NATION OF ISLAM. I think it casts a negative image, given that NOI is a hate group. If anyone reading this is an established user, please edit that article to remove this template from it. I am a new user so I can't do that. Phillipcalvert ( talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a whole raft of pages on controversies (and a template) that cannot be accessed directly from this page. Whilst I agree we should not go overboard here, there should be link to these other pages, as many users wish to access these pages. I have therefore added a link to it in what I hope is an appropriate place Mike Young ( talk) 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There has been comparison to Jainism and Sikhism in the lower box label, but these are offshoots of Hinduism.
Wouldn't it be better to compare it to Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism as major faiths ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.194 ( talk) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
User:White Cat/Sandbox}}
For the sake of the discussion, the original final redesign is
this one.--
Enzuru
08:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Neat idea, however I don't think the Taj Mahal is a good iconic representation of Islam. It isn't an prominent Islamic holy site or anything, although it was built under a Muslim empire and perhaps an example of a type of Muslim art/architecture. On top of that, the previous template used green as the traditional color of Islam, where this template is black. Don't get me wrong, the design is novel and pretty, but it may be a bit too radical/contemporary/bold. Text on black fields are sometimes harder to read than on white as well. I commend the user for a neat, bold design, but think it would be better to revert to the older, more conservative template, at least for now.-
Andrew c
[talk]
00:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I very much protest the blackness of this template. It seems to put Islam (be it implicitly or explicitly) in a negative light, which is not our job as makers of an encyclopedia. I call for reverting to a more neutral color (e.g. faint cyan-gray, which is a popular color in Islam, I think, or blue, gold or maybe plain white). -- Filip ( §) 09:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of the discussion, the original final redesign is
this one.--
Enzuru
08:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
{{ Islam3}} While I do believe the Taj Mahal is appropriate, and the colours are fine, taking those two into consideration I created a slight redesign. I don't like this one as much, but I think it is a good compromise. -- Enzuru 22:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
[De-indenting]I like the King Abdullah Mosque version more than the Taj Mahal one, but either of those is like 1000 times better than the old one. That thing was so hideous... Personally, I like the black... ناهد𒀭(dAnāhita) 𒅴 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
[De-indenting]Okay, so now after the days of discussion we get three people who don't want the Taj Mahal image. Okay, it seems the Jordan one isn't very popular either. Let's get a Kaaba or al-Nabi one and we should be set to go, though I still don't agree we need a new one. -- Enzuru 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It's back to [being] black :( Why does it have to be black? It's hard on the eyes and disrespective, IMO. -- Filip ( §) 08:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that this debate is not about "votes", nor are content disputes decided by votes ( WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). Consensus is the key here, and I don't believe consensus exists over the black redesign. ITAQALLAH 20:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
My proposal is mostly for the general design (such as the abolishment of HTML codes). I used the standard colors and a new color scheme can be easily implemented. I would however suggest the use of colors that is less about religious meanings and more about usability. White on black would take the attention of the reader unnecessarily. You wouldn't want that. You also wouldn't want yellow on white as that would be very hard to read. Also black is the color of evil and death. I seriously doubt Islam template wants to imply that. -- Cat chi? 23:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
As an observation, black isn't the colour of death. White is. And why is black disrespectful? ناهد𒀭(dAnāhita) 𒅴 02:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The current design by Enzuru, looks better than the others. Its not too dark, not too bright, the colour choice is great and the image suits the whole template. This one should be kept as a template for Islam, I think it will appeal to the readers and the links will work well for the eyes. Mohsin 11:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Come on guys...the black one "looked" much better "aesthetically". There is absolutely nothing wrong with black color. Infact it looks quite elegant/sleek. The current white/gray one & previous blue/grey both look usual, nothing extra-ordinary about them, no reason to look at them. The main functional purpose of a template is to help navigation, but how its supposed to look has more to do with aesthetics. Taj Mahal although not necessarily a representative of Islam (theology/practice), is definitely a big representation of Islamic culture/history.
Other than taj mahal, we have some beautiful images of other mosques, like Sultan Ahmed Mosque (Istanbul), Hassan II Mosque, Qolsharif Mosque, Faisal Mosque etc. Although TajMahal image is a perfection, amazing blue/white image that is reflected on water & slowly & seamlessly merges into the blackness of the template. The glowing Allah at the bottom also looks good only on a black background. The Allah in the current design has got absolutely no aesthetic value at all. Farhansher ( talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
This new design still uses HTML. Lets NOT use html and use wikimarkup for the same tasks. -- Cat chi? 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, not bad at all. Although, I do agree with White Cat that it shouldn't use HTML, but rather wiki markup. I have a small problem with the white background of the goldish foreground text (I think it would be better if the "default" creamish white would be used for that as well), but that's not very important. -- Filip ( §) 08:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This design is more compact, and has darker colours. We can revert it back if needed. -- Enzuru 04:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The seperation of "Politics of Islam" & "Jurisprudence" from a series that explain Islam is a NPOV violation. A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new template about a certain subject (Islam) that is part of article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain topic are treated in navigation template. -- TarikAkin ( talk) 02:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, both politics and jurispudence should have links, but they should not have entire sections dedicated to them. Do we have a section dedicated to each of the five pillars, each single one which is infinitely more important than politics or jurispudence? Do we have an entire section about the prophet Muhammad (AS) here? No, we don't, we have a single link to them. There is no justification for giving them separate sections and increasing the template size: a single link is enough. Create separate templates for politics, one already exists for jurispudence. -- Enzuru 12:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason to discuss. Islam has "politics"? Yes!. Islam has "Jurispudence?" Yes!. Are they complex categories (meaning more than one article)? Yes! Does wikipedia already developed these articles? Yes! What is the goal of this template? "Guide people on topics of interest (Islam)." The template needs these concepts to fully achieve these goals. The removal of the sections, "politics" and "Jurispudence", eliminates people reaching these articles. That is an NPOV violation. It creates an image that these major concepts of Islam are hidden (out of sight). That is my position. The rest of the arguments you brought forward is not in question. Two wrong does not make a right. The {{NPOV}} template can be removed when the template includes "politics" and "Jurispudence" By the way, inclusion is the right way. Thank you! -- TarikAkin ( talk) 18:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
TarikAkin, I don't think anybody disputes that the jurisprudence and political aspects are of importance, but templates are rarely intented to have an exhaustive set of links on them, especially the main ones. The main template should map out the general topics related to the article. As has been noted, there are many important concepts that are given only a single link where it's certainly possible for them to have a section of their own. It's entirely possible, for instance, to dedicate separate sections for topics like Qur'an and Hadith, with sub-links to asbab an-nuzul, tafsir, tajwid, qira'at, etc. for the former; and sub-links like rijal, `usul, kutub, and so on for the latter. We have specialised templates for topics like fiqh (i.e. see Template:Fiqh), so that when a reader clicks on the fiqh article from the main template, they will immediately get the option to view any of the sub topics. So it's not a question of 'hiding' anything, it's a question of keeping things concise and balanced. I personally prefer the version which has the topics as links and not sections. Regards, ITAQALLAH 13:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I hate to bring religion into this, this is a secular project, however, it is Ramadan, and we all know that during Ramadan it is very disliked if Muslims argue with each other (and if Muslims argue in general in fact!) I am not going to take place in this debate anymore. TarikAkin, as much as I disagree with you, I love you as my brother in Islam, and I mean no insult or disregard to your intelligence, you are a very capable individual and I hope that after this month is over we can make some progress on our views. In the meantime, I'll work on stuff that takes less arguing. -- Enzuru 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
As another brother pointed out, I feel the Culture & society section has become an almost miscellaneous dumping ground. Do you think we should excise some of this? What is necessary? Can this be split, should it even be in the template? -- Enzuru 23:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Where should this template be used? Should it be used in only the articles in mentions, e.g. Five pillars of Islam, or also in articles it doesn't mention, like jizya? Bless sins ( talk) 16:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hullo, coming in a bit late... at present this template's colors are rather jarring. Template:Shia Islam has a subtle color scheme and attractive layout, with a good placement of the basmala at its top. Would it be crazy to suggest working with the authors of that template (and the even more startling Template:Sunni Islam) to harmonize template appearance across Islam-related articles? — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so User:Itaqallah asked me to redo the Template:Sunni Islam. This weekend I played around with ideas, and instead of managing to do that, I ended up redesigning Template:WivesMuhammad and of course, Template:Islam. I'm sorry for that! Anyway, for a while people wanted a more orthodox green to represent Islam, which I agree with, so we have it now. When I was growing up, my family had this wonderful huge paperback Qur'an with white calligraphy against the dark green background. Underneath the simple beauty was an amazing translation and tafsir by Muhammad Asad. This is the Qur'an I've grown up reading and still read to this day (it's on the desk to the left of me), so it's a bit nostalgic for me (and hopefully others) to see this template in its redesigned form. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya 01:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The current template was derived after much discussion, and it was agreed that the current color looks good. That does not mean the color cannot be changed again, only that it has to be a COLLEGIAL effort and the changer has to build consensus.. the current color and format has been there for quite sometime which is proof that it was a well accepted design. NëŧΜǒńğer Talk to me 06:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
My edit statement was wrong: you had width set to 25%, so it was dynamic. The opposite of what I said was true: this doesn't look too good on higher resolutions. -- Afghana [talk] 02:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In the 'Islam and other religions' section, should the article Mormonism and Islam be added? Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 18:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The template is too tall. It needs to be condensed. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 18:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Wiqi55: if you're going to revert again based on appearance problems, please provide a screenshot to justify that William M. Connolley ( talk)
The article
Khalifatul Masih has been removed from the template due to the following reasons:
1. The addition is largely controversial. While Khalifatul Masih no doubt holds utmost religious importance for
Ahmadis, it is not representative of the belief of the majority of Muslims - and this probably applies to 90% or more.
2. This template is very brief and should only outline main/basic articles. If such "in-detail" articles, as I am calling it, are added, then there are hundreds of others to add and this template can justifiably become more of a sectarian battle ground.
3. The
Template:Ahmadiyya serves the purpose efficiently of catering to these articles. Also see
Wikipedia:Minority opinions, the imposition of minority views over majority.
4. If non-representation is the case of resentment, then there is already a link on this template directing to the Ahmaddiya page. That should be sufficient enough.
Regards, 12:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Mar4d
ahmadis are declared as kuffar by sunni, wahabi etc etc.So that should be removed from templet.
Contribs
Muslim Editor
Talk
10:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
As long as Ahmadis consider themseleves as muslims it is fine. Peaceworld111 ( talk) 11:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
To emphasize what I have said above. The current template was derived after much discussion, and it was agreed that the current color looks good. That does not mean the color cannot be changed again, only that it has to be a COLLEGIAL effort and the changer has to build consensus.. the current color and format has been there for quite sometime which is proof that it was a well accepted design. if you think otherwise please do discuss it here NëŧΜǒńğer Talk to me 06:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I was part of the original group that redesign and recoloured the template:
If you have any concerns, please take it to Template_talk:Islam instead of re-editing the template from the colour and design that everyone has agreed upon. -- Afghana [talk] 00:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This template mainly represents Sunni Islam, for example Quran is used with Sunnah, or in practices section only Sunni's ideas are reflected. This makes it necessary to edit this template and save its neutrality as maximum as possible.-- Aliwiki ( talk) 19:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
My team and I are new here and hope to address this issue, we will preserve the pages and add sections for the shi'a school of thoughts points of view. You are welcome to leave any comments, suggestions and/or ideas for us on my talk page. [talk]-- Jawz shiachat ( talk) 23:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion there should be a link to Muhammad. When I look at Christian template, they give a large section to Jesus. Here there is no mention of founder of Islam, Muhammad, the most important personage in Islam. Peaceworld111 ( talk) 02:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the latest template doesn't expand on the main page (
Islam) making it less useful than other templates found on pages of other religions. I have created {{
Islam-start}} as a temporary solution. Instead, could somebody modify this template to make it auto expand on the linked pages, so that it does not appear collapsed on the main page?
Wiqi(
55)
09:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Correctly speaking, "Beliefs" in the template should link to Iman and not Aqidah (as is currently the case). Aqidah page redirects to Islamic theology and has a lot of other matter apart from Beliefs. Even otherwise, Aqidah means a creed/creedal statement and Iman is translated as Belief/Faith. ~ Shaad lko ( talk) 09:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
While Sufism should be included in this template as it has played a significant role in Islamic history, I don't think it's either a text or a law. Is anyone up for moving it to a different part of the template? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 15:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Guys, someone has mistakenly added this template to the article on NATION OF ISLAM. I think it casts a negative image, given that NOI is a hate group. If anyone reading this is an established user, please edit that article to remove this template from it. I am a new user so I can't do that. Phillipcalvert ( talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a whole raft of pages on controversies (and a template) that cannot be accessed directly from this page. Whilst I agree we should not go overboard here, there should be link to these other pages, as many users wish to access these pages. I have therefore added a link to it in what I hope is an appropriate place Mike Young ( talk) 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There has been comparison to Jainism and Sikhism in the lower box label, but these are offshoots of Hinduism.
Wouldn't it be better to compare it to Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism as major faiths ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.194 ( talk) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
User:White Cat/Sandbox}}
For the sake of the discussion, the original final redesign is
this one.--
Enzuru
08:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Neat idea, however I don't think the Taj Mahal is a good iconic representation of Islam. It isn't an prominent Islamic holy site or anything, although it was built under a Muslim empire and perhaps an example of a type of Muslim art/architecture. On top of that, the previous template used green as the traditional color of Islam, where this template is black. Don't get me wrong, the design is novel and pretty, but it may be a bit too radical/contemporary/bold. Text on black fields are sometimes harder to read than on white as well. I commend the user for a neat, bold design, but think it would be better to revert to the older, more conservative template, at least for now.-
Andrew c
[talk]
00:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I very much protest the blackness of this template. It seems to put Islam (be it implicitly or explicitly) in a negative light, which is not our job as makers of an encyclopedia. I call for reverting to a more neutral color (e.g. faint cyan-gray, which is a popular color in Islam, I think, or blue, gold or maybe plain white). -- Filip ( §) 09:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of the discussion, the original final redesign is
this one.--
Enzuru
08:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
{{ Islam3}} While I do believe the Taj Mahal is appropriate, and the colours are fine, taking those two into consideration I created a slight redesign. I don't like this one as much, but I think it is a good compromise. -- Enzuru 22:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
[De-indenting]I like the King Abdullah Mosque version more than the Taj Mahal one, but either of those is like 1000 times better than the old one. That thing was so hideous... Personally, I like the black... ناهد𒀭(dAnāhita) 𒅴 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
[De-indenting]Okay, so now after the days of discussion we get three people who don't want the Taj Mahal image. Okay, it seems the Jordan one isn't very popular either. Let's get a Kaaba or al-Nabi one and we should be set to go, though I still don't agree we need a new one. -- Enzuru 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It's back to [being] black :( Why does it have to be black? It's hard on the eyes and disrespective, IMO. -- Filip ( §) 08:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that this debate is not about "votes", nor are content disputes decided by votes ( WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). Consensus is the key here, and I don't believe consensus exists over the black redesign. ITAQALLAH 20:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Old | New |
---|---|
My proposal is mostly for the general design (such as the abolishment of HTML codes). I used the standard colors and a new color scheme can be easily implemented. I would however suggest the use of colors that is less about religious meanings and more about usability. White on black would take the attention of the reader unnecessarily. You wouldn't want that. You also wouldn't want yellow on white as that would be very hard to read. Also black is the color of evil and death. I seriously doubt Islam template wants to imply that. -- Cat chi? 23:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
As an observation, black isn't the colour of death. White is. And why is black disrespectful? ناهد𒀭(dAnāhita) 𒅴 02:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The current design by Enzuru, looks better than the others. Its not too dark, not too bright, the colour choice is great and the image suits the whole template. This one should be kept as a template for Islam, I think it will appeal to the readers and the links will work well for the eyes. Mohsin 11:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
|
Come on guys...the black one "looked" much better "aesthetically". There is absolutely nothing wrong with black color. Infact it looks quite elegant/sleek. The current white/gray one & previous blue/grey both look usual, nothing extra-ordinary about them, no reason to look at them. The main functional purpose of a template is to help navigation, but how its supposed to look has more to do with aesthetics. Taj Mahal although not necessarily a representative of Islam (theology/practice), is definitely a big representation of Islamic culture/history.
Other than taj mahal, we have some beautiful images of other mosques, like Sultan Ahmed Mosque (Istanbul), Hassan II Mosque, Qolsharif Mosque, Faisal Mosque etc. Although TajMahal image is a perfection, amazing blue/white image that is reflected on water & slowly & seamlessly merges into the blackness of the template. The glowing Allah at the bottom also looks good only on a black background. The Allah in the current design has got absolutely no aesthetic value at all. Farhansher ( talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
This new design still uses HTML. Lets NOT use html and use wikimarkup for the same tasks. -- Cat chi? 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, not bad at all. Although, I do agree with White Cat that it shouldn't use HTML, but rather wiki markup. I have a small problem with the white background of the goldish foreground text (I think it would be better if the "default" creamish white would be used for that as well), but that's not very important. -- Filip ( §) 08:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This design is more compact, and has darker colours. We can revert it back if needed. -- Enzuru 04:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The seperation of "Politics of Islam" & "Jurisprudence" from a series that explain Islam is a NPOV violation. A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new template about a certain subject (Islam) that is part of article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain topic are treated in navigation template. -- TarikAkin ( talk) 02:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, both politics and jurispudence should have links, but they should not have entire sections dedicated to them. Do we have a section dedicated to each of the five pillars, each single one which is infinitely more important than politics or jurispudence? Do we have an entire section about the prophet Muhammad (AS) here? No, we don't, we have a single link to them. There is no justification for giving them separate sections and increasing the template size: a single link is enough. Create separate templates for politics, one already exists for jurispudence. -- Enzuru 12:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason to discuss. Islam has "politics"? Yes!. Islam has "Jurispudence?" Yes!. Are they complex categories (meaning more than one article)? Yes! Does wikipedia already developed these articles? Yes! What is the goal of this template? "Guide people on topics of interest (Islam)." The template needs these concepts to fully achieve these goals. The removal of the sections, "politics" and "Jurispudence", eliminates people reaching these articles. That is an NPOV violation. It creates an image that these major concepts of Islam are hidden (out of sight). That is my position. The rest of the arguments you brought forward is not in question. Two wrong does not make a right. The {{NPOV}} template can be removed when the template includes "politics" and "Jurispudence" By the way, inclusion is the right way. Thank you! -- TarikAkin ( talk) 18:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
TarikAkin, I don't think anybody disputes that the jurisprudence and political aspects are of importance, but templates are rarely intented to have an exhaustive set of links on them, especially the main ones. The main template should map out the general topics related to the article. As has been noted, there are many important concepts that are given only a single link where it's certainly possible for them to have a section of their own. It's entirely possible, for instance, to dedicate separate sections for topics like Qur'an and Hadith, with sub-links to asbab an-nuzul, tafsir, tajwid, qira'at, etc. for the former; and sub-links like rijal, `usul, kutub, and so on for the latter. We have specialised templates for topics like fiqh (i.e. see Template:Fiqh), so that when a reader clicks on the fiqh article from the main template, they will immediately get the option to view any of the sub topics. So it's not a question of 'hiding' anything, it's a question of keeping things concise and balanced. I personally prefer the version which has the topics as links and not sections. Regards, ITAQALLAH 13:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I hate to bring religion into this, this is a secular project, however, it is Ramadan, and we all know that during Ramadan it is very disliked if Muslims argue with each other (and if Muslims argue in general in fact!) I am not going to take place in this debate anymore. TarikAkin, as much as I disagree with you, I love you as my brother in Islam, and I mean no insult or disregard to your intelligence, you are a very capable individual and I hope that after this month is over we can make some progress on our views. In the meantime, I'll work on stuff that takes less arguing. -- Enzuru 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
As another brother pointed out, I feel the Culture & society section has become an almost miscellaneous dumping ground. Do you think we should excise some of this? What is necessary? Can this be split, should it even be in the template? -- Enzuru 23:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Where should this template be used? Should it be used in only the articles in mentions, e.g. Five pillars of Islam, or also in articles it doesn't mention, like jizya? Bless sins ( talk) 16:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hullo, coming in a bit late... at present this template's colors are rather jarring. Template:Shia Islam has a subtle color scheme and attractive layout, with a good placement of the basmala at its top. Would it be crazy to suggest working with the authors of that template (and the even more startling Template:Sunni Islam) to harmonize template appearance across Islam-related articles? — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so User:Itaqallah asked me to redo the Template:Sunni Islam. This weekend I played around with ideas, and instead of managing to do that, I ended up redesigning Template:WivesMuhammad and of course, Template:Islam. I'm sorry for that! Anyway, for a while people wanted a more orthodox green to represent Islam, which I agree with, so we have it now. When I was growing up, my family had this wonderful huge paperback Qur'an with white calligraphy against the dark green background. Underneath the simple beauty was an amazing translation and tafsir by Muhammad Asad. This is the Qur'an I've grown up reading and still read to this day (it's on the desk to the left of me), so it's a bit nostalgic for me (and hopefully others) to see this template in its redesigned form. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya 01:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The current template was derived after much discussion, and it was agreed that the current color looks good. That does not mean the color cannot be changed again, only that it has to be a COLLEGIAL effort and the changer has to build consensus.. the current color and format has been there for quite sometime which is proof that it was a well accepted design. NëŧΜǒńğer Talk to me 06:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
My edit statement was wrong: you had width set to 25%, so it was dynamic. The opposite of what I said was true: this doesn't look too good on higher resolutions. -- Afghana [talk] 02:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In the 'Islam and other religions' section, should the article Mormonism and Islam be added? Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 18:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The template is too tall. It needs to be condensed. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 18:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Wiqi55: if you're going to revert again based on appearance problems, please provide a screenshot to justify that William M. Connolley ( talk)
The article
Khalifatul Masih has been removed from the template due to the following reasons:
1. The addition is largely controversial. While Khalifatul Masih no doubt holds utmost religious importance for
Ahmadis, it is not representative of the belief of the majority of Muslims - and this probably applies to 90% or more.
2. This template is very brief and should only outline main/basic articles. If such "in-detail" articles, as I am calling it, are added, then there are hundreds of others to add and this template can justifiably become more of a sectarian battle ground.
3. The
Template:Ahmadiyya serves the purpose efficiently of catering to these articles. Also see
Wikipedia:Minority opinions, the imposition of minority views over majority.
4. If non-representation is the case of resentment, then there is already a link on this template directing to the Ahmaddiya page. That should be sufficient enough.
Regards, 12:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Mar4d
ahmadis are declared as kuffar by sunni, wahabi etc etc.So that should be removed from templet.
Contribs
Muslim Editor
Talk
10:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
As long as Ahmadis consider themseleves as muslims it is fine. Peaceworld111 ( talk) 11:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
To emphasize what I have said above. The current template was derived after much discussion, and it was agreed that the current color looks good. That does not mean the color cannot be changed again, only that it has to be a COLLEGIAL effort and the changer has to build consensus.. the current color and format has been there for quite sometime which is proof that it was a well accepted design. if you think otherwise please do discuss it here NëŧΜǒńğer Talk to me 06:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I was part of the original group that redesign and recoloured the template:
If you have any concerns, please take it to Template_talk:Islam instead of re-editing the template from the colour and design that everyone has agreed upon. -- Afghana [talk] 00:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This template mainly represents Sunni Islam, for example Quran is used with Sunnah, or in practices section only Sunni's ideas are reflected. This makes it necessary to edit this template and save its neutrality as maximum as possible.-- Aliwiki ( talk) 19:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
My team and I are new here and hope to address this issue, we will preserve the pages and add sections for the shi'a school of thoughts points of view. You are welcome to leave any comments, suggestions and/or ideas for us on my talk page. [talk]-- Jawz shiachat ( talk) 23:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion there should be a link to Muhammad. When I look at Christian template, they give a large section to Jesus. Here there is no mention of founder of Islam, Muhammad, the most important personage in Islam. Peaceworld111 ( talk) 02:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the latest template doesn't expand on the main page (
Islam) making it less useful than other templates found on pages of other religions. I have created {{
Islam-start}} as a temporary solution. Instead, could somebody modify this template to make it auto expand on the linked pages, so that it does not appear collapsed on the main page?
Wiqi(
55)
09:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Correctly speaking, "Beliefs" in the template should link to Iman and not Aqidah (as is currently the case). Aqidah page redirects to Islamic theology and has a lot of other matter apart from Beliefs. Even otherwise, Aqidah means a creed/creedal statement and Iman is translated as Belief/Faith. ~ Shaad lko ( talk) 09:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
While Sufism should be included in this template as it has played a significant role in Islamic history, I don't think it's either a text or a law. Is anyone up for moving it to a different part of the template? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 15:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)