Template talk:Arabic culture

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arabic culture template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world

Culture

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture

Color scheme

Would the text background look better in white? The text doesn't show up very well in red. 144.214.42.129 (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that horrible color scheme. Please no one ever do that again. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how to set the default for this one with the lists of topics "hidden"

At the moment it stretches out into the distance - would be much more useful (not to mention tidier) if thr list were hidden, so you could show the one(s) you wanted - without scrolling into the sunset! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this template was hardcoded using the navframe styles and bullet lists, and not made with {{Collapsible list}}. If replaced, it should fix things. I would take one of the smaller menus into a sandbox and see what you can do for it with find and replace. Write down what you changed, and apply the same changed to the larger lists. Watch out for submenu items, like architecture/styles/features, and see that they're transformed correctly by your method. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, in terms of the present implementation: it was a problem with the syntax of the embedded html. I've checked this with Firefox and Opera. The problem with using explicit html is that it may fail with some user agents (browsers etc) so a rewrite using other templates may still be desirable. --Mirokado (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking March 2020

@RedEye98: If there are elements that you perceive to be not related to Arab culture, remove those particular elements instead of blanking the page. إيان (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do it, when I do edit it doesn't bring anything. Do you know the part of Wikipedia that teaches this?RedEye98 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RedEye98: See if this page can help you: Help:Template Also, the page you were blanking, Template:Arab culture is in fact a redirect. The template is actually located at Template:Arabic culture, so edit there. إيان (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RedEye98: Editing templates is a little bit technical, so you should experiment in your sandbox as you are learning. Once your edits look good in your sandbox, then apply them to the actual template. إيان (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksRedEye98 (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed 15:11 March 5, 2020

@RedEye98: This edit is not an improvement. Arabs played a major role in the development of Islamic architecture and in other features removed in this edit. To list Islamic architecture here is not to suggest that Islamic architecture belongs solely to Arab culture, but that it is a big part of Arab culture. The same for Islamic calligraphy other topics. إيان (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them belong to Islamic Architecture (Such as the Mazar) which is not exclusive to Arabs. Islamic architecture is also the achievement of other peoples like the Persians. Some of these are also specific to Iranian architecture such as Howz. To be honest, the Peninsular Arabs did not have much role in architecture. This is the achievement of Iraqis and Maghrebis. How many artifacts do you get from Arabia that belong to the Middle Ages?RedEye98 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RedEye98: As previously stated, to list Islamic architecture here is not to suggest that Islamic architecture belongs exclusively to Arab culture. It is, however, an inextricable part of Arab culture. This is also the case for Islamic calligraphy and other subjects. Also, the word "Arab" does not exclusively refer to Arab inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula, as the Arab world extends well beyond. إيان (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RedEye98: You have been warned on your talk page. إيان (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If so, why do you change the name of everything Islamic to Arabic? Like Islamic philosophy to Arabic philosophy, Islamic astronomy to Arabic astronomy and so on. I know the Arabized people are also called Arabs. but when you call the Islamic things as Arabic, all the honor goes to the Arabs of the peninsula because Islam came from there. Here even the names of their tribal gods and the names of their clothes are written. In fact, this section is referring to the Arabian Peninsula, not the Arab world. Even Turkic sections like the Mamluks and Persian like Farabism and Avicennism are written here.RedEye98 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to discuss concerns here in order for us to build consensus on how to improve the template. However, based on your edit history here and other messages that have been left on your talk page, you should familiarize yourself with editing etiquette: WP:PG and especially WP:EW.

Another point that I would like to clarify is that I did not create this template. I am just here to defend and improve the encyclopedia.

As far as the naming of topics such as Islamic architecture using the word "Islamic"—that's simply because those articles are entitled as such. Islamic architecture and other articles are the shared heritage of the Amazigh, Turks, Persians, and many other ethnic groups, including the Arabs. This is why these topics are included in this template.

While Avicenna and Farabi were not ethnically Arab, Arabic is a language which they spoke and in which they published. The template is about "Arabic culture," which is more based on the language, than "Arab culture" which is more closely associated with the ethnicity. For these reasons, I would argue that Avicenna and Farabi can stay. However, if there are other topics that really don't have a connection with the culture of the Arabic language, please mention them here so we can discuss them and reach an agreement about how to improve the template and the encyclopedia. إيان (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say this, but the Arabic language culture doesn't make sense. Avicenna and Farabi were scientists, not poets. Many Arabic poets were non-Arab and even the earlier Arabic calligraphers were Persian, but I did not exclude those sections because I knew they belonged to the Arabs. Avicenna also has Persian writings, and the language of the Turkic people, Amazigh (not Arabized Amazighs), Persians are not Arabic today, so they do not like to see Arab nationalists devote their ancestors' efforts (non-Arabs' ancestors) to the Arabs.They also called them Islamic because the people who did these things were Muslim. So it belongs to the people, neither Islam nor Arab and has nothing to do with religion or language. Neither the Qur'an, nor Muhammad, nor Rashidun have given any training in the sciences or arts. Western scholars called them all Islamic because the common feature of all these artists and scientists was that they were Muslim and that these Muslim nations had influenced on each other. There is a section on Islamic culture in Wikipedia that says the efforts of Arabs and Moors so there is no need for these Arabic sections.RedEye98 (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment

In this template, many Islamic things have been written Arabic (such as Islamic philosophy to Arabic philosophy), although Wikipedia itself has categorized them as "Islamic" or "in the Miedival Islamic world." Other Muslim peoples, such as the Persians, the Berbers, the Turks, also share in the Islamic culture, and the total number of the activity of non-Arab Muslim people is even greater than that of Arabs. There are also sections that refer to other people, such as Avicennism to Persians, and Mamluks to Turks but these are categorized in Arabic culture. Isn't it better to edit such sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedEye98 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RedEye98, since you're clearly having trouble setting up this RfC, I'm going to go ahead and do that in the section below. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC take 2

The consensus is that this template should links to articles about topics that have significance outside of Arabic culture, such as Islamic architecture or Avicennism.
Cunard (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this template include links to articles about topics that have significance outside of Arabic culture, such as Islamic architecture or Avicennism? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Yes I absolutely recommend. Idealigic (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes – I started this RfC on another editor's behalf to resolve a dispute, but I am in favor of the status quo of including links to such articles in the template. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I don't know if my vote counts, as I was the user that originally reverted the disruptive edits, but I agree. With that said, I am also open to removing any specific content that can be proven not to have a significant connection after a discussion in the talk page. إيان (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
إيان, yes your vote counts, as would RedEye98's if they decide to participate _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Large number of links

I support the general style and content of this template, but I think some consideration needs to be given to its sheer size/scope and the number of links. The guidelines on navboxes (WP:NAVBOX) explicitly state that they should be employed to navigate around fairly self-contained topics. Here are the first three guidelines stated there (though I recommend reading the rest):

All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.

This isn't the only navbox to probably ignore some of that advice, but there are problems with straying from these. As things are, there are so many links in the template that having this sidebar at each of those articles would practically spam half of all topics related to the Islamic world or the Middle East & North Africa, without really providing a boost to navigation. Many of the links are technically relevant, but they're either so broad (e.g. vault and voussoir, which are basic architectural elements anywhere in the world) or so specific (e.g. tadelakt, which to my knowledge is a mainly Moroccan feature), that they can't reasonably conform to the guidelines above in my opinion. Many, if not most, of the articles linked here definitely don't refer to all of the other articles linked here, for example, and reasonably never would. Some of the linked articles are also overview articles that already direct readers to the other linked articles as subtopics (e.g. Islamic ornament and Islamic architecture), so it seems inefficient to link to all of these simultaneously (and the selection of subtopics to link may always end up being more subjective and incomplete than we think).

More specifically, the guidelines also recommend for sidebars, like this one, that they "should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template (located at the bottom of the article) may be more appropriate."

This is especially relevant here for the reasons mentioned above. Another problem is that many of the linked articles, including those that are only partially relevant, are short or not fully developed (some of them don't even have a lead image), which means that when you include the sidebar it appears disproportionally prominent in relation to the article itself and often displaces images or takes up space that could be used for more relevant elements. In cases where these articles have a very wide scope beyond the Arab world or a very narrow scope within it, the inclusion of the sidebar is even more awkward and it can, like it or not, disproportionately emphasize the "Arab/Arabic" aspect of the topic to general readers who see it. I myself have removed this template in some places for some of these reasons. Of course, it's not obligatory for the navbox to appear everywhere, but if the coverage here is so broad that the template can't even reasonably be included in a lot of these articles, then it's not serving its purpose very well.

I suggest one of these options: 1) Trim down the number of links significantly to focus on the most important/useful; 2) Convert this template into a footer navbox; or 3) Split this navbox into smaller ones (e.g. one for each of the existing subsections). I'd welcome any discussion on this.

PS: Just to be extra clear, I agree with the consensus above about including topics of significance outside Arabic culture (otherwise you could exclude almost anything of major importance), my concern is just about the sheer number of links. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]