Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:10, 7 September 2008

Islam Template‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Template This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Older discussions can be found at:

1. Archive 1 (Includes: Start – 4 August 2005)
2. Archive 2 (Includes: August 2005 - May 2006)
3. Archive 3 (Includes: May 2006 - March 2008)

Controversies

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)

I disagree. The criteria for inclusion on that page appears to be whether its even vaguely related to Islam or Muslims. Half the content is about various terms, and the rest is a timeline of incidences - a number of which bear no direct significance to Islam (or even Muslims). Given the large numbers especially in the 06/07 category, I also think the issue of "controversies" may be far too recentist in focus - it certainly doesn't merit a separate section IMO. I'd prefer broader feedback before we go ahead with this change... ITAQALLAH 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of reverting my edit without even an explanation in the edit summary, why don't you wait for a consensus to develop before trying to enforce this change? ITAQALLAH 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't edit: you reverted. In your keenness you wrote this whilst I was writing the comment below so I got an edit conflict:

This is a criticism of the linked page. Perhaps the linked page could be improved, but so could any other page please feel free to do so. But the linked page is a list of links to other pages. It is certainly not the disaster you imply. Many people looking for this kind of list would expect a link from the main Islam template. They even have their own template on controversies, which indicates a lot of interest and activity. If I want to find a list of the controversies this is best page that exists.Mike Young (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the linked page which contains the "raft of pages on controversies" apparently making it necessary to include here. That many of these pages may in fact be totally irrelevant would suggest that it's not as significant as is being asserted. So criticism of the page does appear pertinent.

I'm sorry... why should a main religion template have a section on controversies? Why is the unfounded notion that "many users wish to access these page" even relevant to whether it actually merits inclusion here? The controversy template itself is bloated, the controversy article is totally unsourced, contains many vaguely related incidences, and is recentist in focus. A whole section isn't neutral at all. ITAQALLAH 20:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Islam needs a section on controversies because it is a controversial religion. This may be because it is a big religion, or because the religion itself causes it, but there is definitely a lot of contreversy around Islam today. 2) The need to access pages and information is what an encyclopedia is about. Misplaced Pages is not censored, so it should not pretend that Islam is not controversial. By hiding these links to these pages you are in a way censoring the articles. 3) The "bloatedness" of the controversy page and article should be addressed in those articles, but it is itself evidence that there is a lot of controversy about Islam and interest in those controversies in Misplaced Pages. 3) The controversy page is unsourced as it is a list so it doesn't need to be, it is monitored by the "Islam and controversies" taskforce and has its own healthy talk page. 4) The section is neutral because it mentions the controversies in a neutral manner (usually just by mentioning their name). NPOV does not mean not mentioning things, but rather not passing judgement on them. Mike Young (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The claim that it's a controversial religion is entirely your own personal opinion, not relevant to this discussion, and certainly not a reflection of the scholarly sources. Please don't presume that undoing tendentious overstatements about recentist "controversy" (many of which aren't actually relevant) constitutes censorship. So let's drop that unhelpful rhetoric. As for the rest of your comments: Lists do need to be sourced; material isn't included just because it's "interest"; the neutrality issue here is indeed relevant, and revolves around WP:UNDUE. I might be more accomodating of it being present as a normal link alongside the criticism/Islamophobia ones- but as a section heading I find it unacceptable. ITAQALLAH 21:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike, there is "controversy" in Islam as a whole, yet there is controversy within almost every aspect of Islam. This controversy ranges from internal disagreements between Muslims, to polemical allegations made by others, to misconceptions about Islam. There is already a controversy template.Bless sins (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that controversies also include things that most Muslims agree to (so are not misconceptions), but non-Muslims think are immoral (such as the death penalty for homosexuality or apostacy), or untrue (very few non-muslims are convinced that there is anything miraculaous in the Koran). Links to unpopular articles would constitute WP:UNDUE, but most of the articles linked seem to be popular (judging by their edit count). So are we agreed that we should add a link to the controversies just below and at the same level as the "critisism" and "Islamophobia" ones? Mike Young (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No. 65.95.142.28 (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could identify yourself and your prevous contribuions? You cannot get unanimous view on anything. Perhaps I should have asked if there were any new reasons as to why we can't add this to the template? Mike Young (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't see how your points assert the need for inclusion (and I don't quite agree with the arguments, e.g.: very many non-Muslims know virtually nothing about the Qur'an at all anyway, let alone having read it for themselves, so I don't see how you can speak for them). I think "popularity" is a somewhat subjective notion, and I don't believe it has any bearing on how we decide what is pertinent or not. The same goes for things like edit counts - such factors have never been relevant in making content decisions. ITAQALLAH 21:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not convincing me here. I think you are just trying to censor the template by removing the links to the "Islam and controversy" stuff, in the hope that people won't be able to find the articles you don't want them to see. Mike Young (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're far more likely to get agreement if you develop a sound, policy/guideline-based rationale for inclusion instead of personally attacking those who disagree with you. ITAQALLAH 23:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam & Other religions

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)

Jainism and Sikhism are faiths in their own right, not offshoots on Hinduism. That is like saying Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism or Islam is an offshoot of Christianity. --Enzuru 21:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Redesign

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  00:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't want to argue for this, I didn't think anyone was going to like it. But, in its defense, black does have a place in traditional Islam too, for example it plays deeply into the coming of the messiah, al-Mahdi, who plays important parts in both Sunni and Shi'a Islam, admittedly moreso in the latter. As for the Taj Mahal, you are right, all it represents is Muslim art, however, the building we had before didn't necessarily need to be a masjid either: it simply had the traditional minarets. I saw the Taj Mahal in the Islam article itself under Islamic architecture, so I thought it would be valid, though I am interested in hearing fellow Muslim opinions. As for readability, I checked it on an old CRT and increased the font-size (as you can see through the edits) in order to make up for this, and also hand-coded each link to a nice contrasting color. But like I said, I don't want to argue for it, it was just something I wanted to do. I'd like to see it stay, but I see that as very unlikely. --Enzuru 06:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like the redesign save for these two thoughts: (1) Printing out all that black might make some folk unhappy; (2) The dividers now seem to catch the eye more easily than the darker, less-contrasted links. If (1) isn't an issue, maybe something can be done to improve (2)..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I also just realized that there's some wide gaps between the subheadings and links that follow. Hopefully they can be reduced without much difficulty. Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:54, 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)

OK, I inverted the colors after consulting with a few people on #wikipedia-en. --Filip (§) 09:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not the default template color on {{Navigation}}? -- Cat 13:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose the new design to the right. What do you guys think? -- Cat 14:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• The gaps between lines seem too wide here; perhaps also the ampersands need not be included? (And is there a cropped version of the image in which the Kaaba is more central?) Otherwise, looks fine. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  PS The name of Allah is a little on the faint side.

I would still like the original design, along with the few suggestions here, for example, I can make the links white, or more whitish blue, and I can find an image close to the Taj Mahal, I think there is a masjid in Turkey kinda like it with the reflection. --Enzuru 18:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the template looks brilliant. The black color I think does not put Islam in a negative light, but in a type of subject that is associated with the truth or something which can be discovered for knowledge, and I think reflects the sky during the night. So it looks great. But if the color does cause concern, I think Enzuru can change it to probably a green sort of color. The Taj Mahal looks fine, because it is a building with Islamic designs, for example the dome and the minarets. M Miah (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can do it in a greenish black instead of a bluish black. And when I went to the Taj Mahal, there is a masjid there as well (right next to the building) and a building mirroring the masjid for the sake of symmetry. Overall, like UNESCO said, it is the jewel of Islamic art in India. --Enzuru 22:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a clean white background is better, and I disagree that black is more religiously symbolic. Can we achieve agreement upon the design before implementing it, please? (And please no Taj Mahal) I would suggest that the previous version be restored until something is agreed upon. ITAQALLAH 21:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Taj Mahal image really should be replaced, I think an image of the ka'bah would be far more suitable for an encyclopedia. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Vote: redesign vs revert

For the sake of the discussion, the original final redesign is this one.--Enzuru 08:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Redesign - I vote to redesign, keeping the picture, but changing the font colours and sizes for readability sake, as well as making the template a bit more green. --Enzuru 22:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Like it - I like it, don't revert to the stupid old one. 01:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Not opposed so long as the cosmetic points above addressed at some point, but, though I agree the template looks fine on screen, I wonder whether people would be happy printing it if it has a lopt of background color (black or otherwise). Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Writing a Javascript thing to switch template colours to make them more printer-friendly wouldn't be going too far, though it may seem excessive. --Enzuru 01:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Nice Design, but Taj Mahal! --Sadik Khalid (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Redesign It's amazing! However the Taj Mahal should be substituted with a more traditional Islamic monument, or with the popular Islamic symbol of the crescent moon. --87.4.90.167 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm not fond of the new design, nor do I quite see why one is really necessary. ITAQALLAH 21:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Like it - I like it - it is a much needed change from the grossly bland template. Scythian1 (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Redesign - it's a nice, striking template, however the Taj Mahal really should be replaced, I believe, by the Ka'bah, surely the most iconic and notable Islamic building in the world, or the crescent moon. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC))
• Oppose per my comments in the section below. The Black is too stereotypical, the Taj Mahal is not representative of Islam, and the King Abdullah mosque has a flag. Eklipse (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Addressing some of the concerns

Template: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)

• I'd really much rather a lighter background. Black doesn't quite work I feel (just feels a bit more negative). Also, an image that represents Islam as a whole - like the pictorial of the mosque for instance or perhaps even the Masjid al-Haram-- would be much more appropriate than a pic of the Taj Mahal (It might represent a style of Islamic architecture, certainly not the whole of it nor the religion of Islam in general) or any specific mosque. ITAQALLAH 22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, when you have a building that not only is iconic of Islamic civilization (and I say that because even on the template we have aspects of civilization, not just religion, an important distinction between Islam and say Buddhism) but has a masjid connected to it, has Qur'an verses inscribed upon it, and so forth, it strikes me as Islamic enough to be an icon for Islamic civilization. But anyway, you are correct that the blackness does give a slight negative feeling, however, aesthetically I find it to be pleasing. As for as mosques, thing is, if we don't care about aesthetics the older template was fine, but we do care about how it looks, so not every picture of the kaaba or anything is going to look wonderful. --Enzuru 22:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but I think there are more pertinent images we can use than Taj Mahal. Indeed, the Taj Mahal might represent an aspect of Islamic civilisation (in other words the impact of Islam), but it generally wouldn't represent Islam itself, and very few if any would say it's of religious significance to Muslims (or enjoys central religious significance in Islam). Conversely, the Masjid al-Haram for example has direct religious significance for all Muslims, is sanctified in Islam and is also mentioned in the Qur'an. I think anyone who sees a picture of it would immediately think 'Islam' - which is not quite what I could say about the Taj Mahal. That's why I think there's some images which are of greater relevance here than others. Regards, ITAQALLAH 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is always something we could use that is better I think, but as far as aesthetics, it isn't sacrificing what Islam is, that is what I would like to say. By putting it up, we simply aren't using the best thing, but we're not sacrificing anything because it is a good icon in its own right. So, my view is that it looks good and isn't totally off-the-wall (which I know some people disagree with). Anyway, do you really oppose all redesigns? I'm curious as to what you really want. --Enzuru 23:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The main purpose of a template is as an informational device and a navigational aid (in my mind, at least). Aesthetics is secondary and the aim shouldn't be to make it 'pretty' if it hinders encyclopedicity (which is my point about using the most pertinent, representative image). I don't oppose all redesign attempts, but I do think the proposed one is too radical a change. I personally prefer a light background (white or a pale green/blue), and as I mentioned before, I don't think black suits the template as a background colour. ITAQALLAH 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is more difficult than easy to hinder the information part of a template (which like you said is its primary purpose), it's in the words and to a lesser extent, organization. The preciseness of the image isn't necessarily key for information, because it really isn't relaying anything. So, in that case, I feel an exercise in aesthetics, within reasonable boundaries, can only help making the template more useful in having something nice to look at since you'll probably be using it alot anyway. It functions the same as beautifying an article, like making sure not every image is on the right side, or there are ten images in one place. Aesthetics is important, and I think it is something we certainly should aim for. No, I don't want a picture of Krishna on here, but I don't mind something that is itself iconic and representative, that even though isn't completely manifesting an "Islamic icon", is still doing a good aesthetic job. --Enzuru 00:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd much prefer something along the lines of this layout (though I like White Cat's design as well). The colours and relative sizes need tweaking because it was a straight invert, but IMHO it's a lot nicer than the one on the right. ITAQALLAH 01:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, though it is lovely, it isn't much different than what we had before except with a different image. Whitecat's is pretty unique admittedly, but not the direction I think we should go in. --Enzuru 02:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The proposed templates are a breath of fresh air from the current bland and boring template. If I had to select between the two proposed templates (Taj Mahal and this Mosque in Jordan), I'd choose the Taj Mahal template. But this one Enzuru created is fine as well. Scythian1 (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not a white or green crescent instead of the mosques? --87.9.84.73 (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The crescent isn't as pretty! What's wrong with a mosque? The crescent isn't a Muslim symbol, although it's been used as an Islamic one. It was the symbol of the Ottomans dating back from their tribal days. ناهد(Anāhita) 15:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the votes were in favor of the template, while in second place came people who liked the template and not the image. On a vote-basis, I will put the new Taj Mahal template up, however, I am simply waiting for Itaqallah to give a rebuttal of some sort. Misplaced Pages isn't a democracy after all. --Enzuru 00:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know when he's going to be back, if he's been gone these few days, it could be longer. I'll put it to the Taj Mahal template for now, a modified version with the colours that are more vibrant. We can discuss a green-version one as well. --Enzuru 00:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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... ناهد(Anāhita) 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should get an image of the Dome of the Rock, or Kaaba (that might look nicely with the rest of the black) or the green dome in Medina. These alone represent all of Islam, not the Taj Mahal.Bless sins (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If we had a template on Islamic art, then the Taj would be appropriate.Bless sins (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You're one of the first people to acknowledge we need something that goes with the black, thank you. If someone can find an image like that (I tried) go for it. I considered using this for Islamic Art or Islam by Country after I thought people would reject this for this template, but I still disagree that the Taj Mahal is not appropriate in this situation as well. It is representative of Islam as a civilization, which most Muslims from the beginning saw Islam as a civilization, even secular Muslims like myself do. And none of this is original research either.--Enzuru 05:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I said I liked the black! ناهد(Anāhita) 07:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean liking the black, I meant realizing we needed something that faded into the black! --Enzuru 09:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• One the first look, I liked it, but on the second look I didn't. I agree with what Itaqallah said. Cheers, --AAA765 (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Itaqallah. The dark black color is just too stereotypical even if it is aesthetically better. I also agree that very few Muslims identify their religion with the Taj Mahal. The King Abdullah Mosque is nice but I don't like the Flag of Jordan appearing. I propose we return to a more neutral design before discussing a new one. Eklipse (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is stereotypical about black? I mean, when I think Islam, I don't think "black". I usually think green, which is a bit eye-burning on the computer. If the masjid in question is problematic, the Ka‘ba would probably be great with the black - if we can find a picture. ناهد(Anāhita) 15:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Add me too to the list of 'want nots' for the Taj Mahal image please. The only argument which might favor keeping the Taj is that it is an iconic symbol of Islamic arthitecture. However, what is needed (in my opinion) is a 'symbolic icon' instead, one which symbolizes Islam as a religion and not one that associates it with just a particular kind of architecture. Another reason the Taj image needs to go is because it isn't what most people presume it to be, viz. a Masjid ('Mosque', if you may). The Taj is only a mausoleum in essence and hence not a very befitting 'picture' of Islam indeed. How about using say, a picture of the Holy Kaaba (due to its being the direction of performing Salaah in Islam) or maybe that of the Qur'an (because it is THE central text of Islam) or say the word 'Islam' written in Arabic (how iconic indeed :) or the maybe even 'Allah' in Arabic (just like the Cross signifying God in the Christianity Template). 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's back to 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)

Instead of restoring the previous version, I decided to see how White Cat's proposal would go down with everyone. I do understand that the previous version may have needed redesigning, but some of the aspects incorporated into Enzuru's version haven't sat well with a few editors here. Hopefully, this version addresses both the calls for a nicer design as well as the concerns over colours/images. What does everyone think? ITAQALLAH 20:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I don't like White Cat's version. It's so clunky. The black is elegant and gorgeous. It's what Template:Alevism aspires to (and fails, because red is hardcore). ناهد(Anāhita) 21:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The least that can be said about the black is that it has divided opinion, and I think we can all agree with that assessment at least. Of course, White Cat's proposal is available for tweaking, critique, or other redesigns can be proposed. But I think too much colour in general (black, green, whatever) doesn't look as crisp and 'encyclopedically neutral' (if I can use that term) as a white or pale background. The next step forward is to produce something we can all live with, if not agree upon. ITAQALLAH 21:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

edit point alpha

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 23:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I adjusted the colors a bit. I placed both designs next to each other for your convenience. -- Cat 23:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I can make it so that the image can alternate once every day or month. That can mean 12 to 366 possible images. No reason to show one boring picture all the time. -- Cat 23:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I liked White Cat's design, it was unique and something refreshing. However, as much as this might come to a shock to everyone, I don't agree about the colours. Black is slick, black is used for everything from new models of a BMW to the new Apple products. And I don't agree a template is something to be there casually and be used as an easy way to click through a topic, it is a manifestation of something more. And I agree yellow on white is idiotic, however goldenrod on white works wonderfully. I don't feel there is any need to necessarily go down this road, since it is significantly bulkier. While we can certainly do the alternating image thing with some Javascript skills, I am in favour of a static one. --Enzuru 23:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not use any javascript (I dislike java). The image on my new version will alternate on 22nd 23rd and 24th of this month (for testing purposes). How about goldenrod on light gray like on my template?

The purpose of a navbox is to be there casually and be used as an easy way to click through a topic. It should never dominate. That is why they exist and are created. You could make them look as you see fit by altering your monobook. :)

-- Cat 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure your comment wasn't meant to be as rude as it sounded. --Enzuru 00:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see how it can be interpreted as rude. I am only here to throw in ideas and provide technical assistance. I really have no vested interest at all. So rest assured. :) -- Cat 00:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As an observation, black isn't the colour of death. White is. And why is black disrespectful? ] 02:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For a good number of people Black is used for negative symbolism. -- Cat 11:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New design

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)

I agree with every single word you said Farhansher, but the fact is, while we can stand the current design, they couldn't stand the previous one. We have to find the least controversial design, and I am guessing the current one will be that. --Enzuru 22:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• If this template is taken up -- looks fine to me, overall -- then I'd suggest a greyer (grayer?) background for the lists of links; the current white background looks a bit "in the face" here. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The one on the right looks alright, I think the text is a tad difficult to read (maybe it's just me?). Perhaps making the hue a bit darker would fix that? ITAQALLAH 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This new design still uses HTML. Lets NOT use html and use wikimarkup for the same tasks. -- Cat 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)

I agree as well... it'd be much better to use wikimarkup. ITAQALLAH 15:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think that colour is an issue here - gold font on a white background is difficult to see, particularly to people with bad eyesight. Other than that I think it is good. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

Another attempt

This design is more compact, and has darker colours. We can revert it back if needed. --Enzuru 04:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not bad. I didn't like the white background in the text so I tried to match it with the off-white in the image. If someone has better graphics equipment they could sample the image and get it exact. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The colour should be closer now. --Enzuru 05:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of integral part of Islam is a NPOV violation

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)

First of all, no, not all Muslims believe the Politics of Islam and Jurispudence is the same thing. The founder of the Usuli in Twelver Shi'a Islam, Shaykh Ansari, was against this idea, and the idea reached its height in popularity only 30 or so years ago under Khomeini and still continues to be popular, until that point many dynasties, such as the Safavid, Qajar, Mughal and even Ottoman, were not being ruled by Islamic fiqh. Second, Ahl al-Bayt are part of Islam, whether Sunni or Shi'a, but this has its own two templates, one for the Ahl al-Kisa and one for the Wives of Muhammad with links to these people. There is no issue with linking to politics here, but not every single topic should be linked to. --Enzuru 06:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also recall major groups of Muslims such as Alevi, Nizari, and some Sufi groups completely reject fiqh altogether (what they have can hardly be even described as fiqh), so we only mention fiqh in passing with a single link. --Enzuru 06:17, 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)

I'd like to apologize, I didn't see your very constructive additions and changes to the template aside from your adding of those two sections. I am very sorry for that, so I mixed both versions, only taking out the two sections. --Enzuru 12:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I don't care one way or the other about the politics and fiqh sections (though I did think they belonged in two different sections if they were kept, hence my splitting them up), but I do like to see things adhere to WP:CAPS and the like, whether these sections remain or not. Regards, ProhibitOnions 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Enzuru, the arguments (regarding some sects of ISLAM do not perceive "Politics of Islam" & "Jurisprudence" is not integral part of Islam) regarding this concept proves that these are part of the issue. If we remove them from this template, according your perception (understanding), that would mean that a big section of the issue will not be represented, that does not belong to your perception (understanding). This is a WP:NPOV violation. It is clear, simple and direct. --TarikAkin (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Where in the world do I say we should take out links? My major argument is the fact that we do not give huge sections to a single concept. Prayer is more important, but do we have an entire section for prayer? Fasting is more important, but do we have an entire section for fasting? You are right, if I took out the links to Politics and Jurispudence, that would be NPOV. But I am not taking the links out, I am taking sections out that unnecessarily bloat the template. Unless you want to make a section for every single link on the template, one for prayer, one for fasting, one for hajj, then all this will stay out of the template. We have links to these topics already. If you put a NPOV sign on there, I will take it out. Prayer, fasting, politics, jurisprudence, women, all the topics of Islam are already linked on this template, even though some groups disagree with some aspects and promote other aspects. The point is we don't need an entire section for one concept. --Enzuru 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a link to politics, since it wasn't there like jurispudence was. We can (and should) have this link, but anything more is bloating and POV. --Enzuru 23:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My position is not about "give huge sections to a single concept" or "if Prayer is more important, or not." This is also not about what is important for Enzuru. Islam has "Politics" and "Jurispudence." These concepts are not unitary concepts. They are categories. They have to be represented with all issues they cover. There is not one single "Jurispudence" in Islam, it extends to "MILITARY", "ETHICS", "...." You are actively violating the NPOV by even trying to bring if these concepts are part of Islam or not. The criteria is factual and trutful representation of the Islam, not it is not about "bloating the template." TarikAkin (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming a bit late to this, but I'd like to note that the templates are meant to guide people on topics of interest, not as a summary of what is "important to Islam"--Tznkai (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You are not using any logic whatsoever, you are using blind emotion. I am the one who put the politics link on the template, I am the one saying it is mandatory to have it. Shi'a Islam is not a unitary concept, I can have an entire section for that. Prayer is not a unitary concept, there are five prayers and tons more concepts involved. I am not violating NPOV, these concepts are huge in many groups in Islam. Yes, we need a factual and truthful representation in Islam, which is exactly why these articles are linked, they do not need an entire section. I will agree to having an entire section for politics and jurisprudence if you agree to having an entire section for prayer, fasting, Shi'a Islam, Sunni Islam, Theology, and everything else. Deal? --Enzuru 22:39, 4 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)

Islam's foundation is prayer? Yes! Islam has a branches of faith that have entire topics devoted to them? Yes! Are they complex categories (meaning more than one article)? Yes! Does Misplaced Pages already have developed versions of these articles? Yes! What is the goal of this template? "Guide people on topics of internet (Islam)." The template needs these concepts to fully achieve these goals. The lack of the sections, "prayer" and "Shi'a Islam", eliminate people from reaching these articles. That is an NPOV violation. It creates an image that these major concepts of Islam are hidden (out of sigh). That is my position. The rest of the arguments you brought forward are painted through emotion and your own biases, and ignoring everything I am saying. Two wrongs do not make a right, however, when we are trying to keep a template slim, not only do we keep sections like "prayer" and "Shi'a Islam" out, but other sections like "Politics" and "Jurispudence". It's not because we hate these topics! And inclusion is not the right way for templates, please review Misplaced Pages template guidelines! You can keep this NPOV here forever, I've been here for years and have done this for years and can wait years. Take care! Hoşçakal! --Enzuru 22:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Enzuru, the "politics" and "jurispudence" OF ISLAM will be represented in the template. You can resolve the issues you brought forward with other people. I do not care. I'm only interested in the "politics" and "jurispudence." Thank you. --TarikAkin (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the issues I brought up were to bring up the point that we do not need entire sections for something that can be represented in a single link like everything else. Politics and jurispudence will be a single link, just like other important topics are. Thanks. --Enzuru 01:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not care for your insistence of addition of "Prayer." Feel free. But you do not have the right to threaten people by claimin you will involve with a edit war that will last years. (you claim: "I've been here for years and have done this for years and can wait years"). Do not remove the "politics" and "jurispudence." That is violation of NPOV. Thanks. TarikAkin (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We are needlessly bloating this template, that was my point. And I didn't mean an edit war, I meant you can leave the NPOV thing up for years, I don't care. I assume you have good intentions, you should assume I have good intensions as well. That is part of Misplaced Pages. Removing politics and jurispudence is not a violation of NPOV, because they are already linked on the template, and we are not giving an entire section for any single topic. I am the one who put politics as a link on the template. --Enzuru 02:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Template-Class Islam-related pages
• NA-importance Islam-related pages
• WikiProject Islam articles