Template talk:Bahá'í sidebar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Bahá'í Faith (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Bahá'í Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Specifics of Linking[edit]

I noticed that there are two links on this that go th the same page: The Guardian and Shoghi Effendi. Now I realize that here is that there was one Guardian, and he was Shoghi Effendi, but the Guardian and Shoghi Effendi were two distinct entities. In 'God Passes By' Shoghi Effendi didn't refer to himself regarding noteworthy historical developments, but rather to the Guardian as being the participator.

So basically I think it would be ideal to link 'The Guardian' to another or a new article about the Guardianship. Perhaps I'll do that in the next couple of minutes. LambaJan 16:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. But I think explaining the guardianship under Shoghi Effendi's page would be helpful because his page is pretty bare. And making a separate page might invite attacks. Remember its a sensitive issue. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 19:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's useful to have that information on Shoghi Effendi's page, but perhaps there could be a new page for the sake of accuracy and a balance reached between the two. Neither needs to be terribly exhaustive. As far as attacks, there was a note that I agree with that was left on my talk page that addresses this:

An excellent idea to separate these articles. Right on-point. I anticipate that this will likely generate controversy with OBF if it deals with the succession. May I suggest that you deal with that in the article by only addressing the office, not addressing succession in detail (perhaps merely pointing to the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá), and directing further inquiry to Bahá'í divisions? Even with that you may still have to bird-dog the article.
Thank you for taking this on. MARussellPESE 17:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me know what you think about this. LambaJan

Sounds like a smart guy, or maybe girl. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 16:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews link[edit]

Why has this been deleted? AndrewRT 23:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to be insultive. I should have left an explanation somewhere.
I had two reasons: one is that it made the template twice as wide as it was (a huge asthetic problem), and two is that those kinds of links usually go in the actual article. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 00:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Didn't realise that - it looked ok on my version. I've added the link to teh main BF article instead AndrewRT 13:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

edit box[edit]

I really don't like the edit box that was added to the bottom of the template. It takes up extra space and it's not really necessary. Would anyone object if I remove it? Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 23:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking Cuñado, please see this talk to better understand why it's there. Thanks. Netscott 00:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

'the' vs 'a'[edit]

Nescott, I'm sorry but I disagree with you. It sounds much better to have "the series", and since there is only one series there's no grammatical issue. Saying "a series" implies that there are multiple series about the Baha'i Faith. I think if we resolve the whole "series" issue and change the wording this won't be an issue. For something that has been around for years you need to get some better consensus before insisting on changing it. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 04:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new look[edit]

I've put together a proposed revision of the template modeled on the one for Zoroastrianism that looks quite nice. As I did I made a few small changes to the text which I hope will more accurately describe the links to which they refer. It was difficult to find a color of yellow that was nice; at any rate, it seemed that the yellow would look better against a white rather than a gray background, so I removed the link to the toccolours css class. I think it would be best to solicit comments rather than simply putting the proposal up. Please let me know what you think. I notice that the edit box at the bottom seems to come from the Tnavbar; I have no opinion on whether it should stay or go. modify 12:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Posted reply at User talk:Modify/Sandbox -- Jeff3000 14:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If I understand the comments so far, the consensus seems to be that the current look is a good one and that the proposal would not be an improvement. The comments have been helpful, and I'm grateful to those who have had an opportunity to look at the proposal. modify 16:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, how bout one of two templates at User:Jeff3000/Sandbox2. They are based on Modify's proposal, but have a smaller width, and different colours. -- Jeff3000 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel both these two are great, better than the current one. Both colours are fine, but if you want me to choose, let it be for the purple one on the left.
I don't see a problem with any of those. Although I like the shorter wording on the top "part of the series". Whatever. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice proposals, Jeff3000. The blue one has inspired four more possibilities: User:Modify/Sandbox2 and User:Modify/Sandbox3. They're just ideas and can be set aside. I hope they don't make it difficult to reach consensus, and I personally am happy with the current template. I like all four colors, and the green in particular, although the green might lead to confusion with the series on Islam or the series on Baha'i literature. In all four, more of a margin between the links and the border would be nice. modify 19:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

They look good. My favourite colour is the blue one in User:Modify/Sandbox2. My favourite text at the beginning is at User:Jeff3000/Sandbox2. My favourite subheading fonts are at User:Modify/Sandbox2. As for the cellspacing, I'm not sure which one is better. -- Jeff3000 19:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea, and it's just an idea. Actually two separate ideas. First, to solve the wording issue, we could re-format it to look like the African American template, and instead say "Baha'i Faith topics" or "Topics on the Baha'i Faith". There was a big issue about using the word "series" because it's technically not correct. (a series is an ordered list, the correct word would be 'set') The other idea is to use either color in User:Modify/Sandbox2, and use the same color on Template:Bahá'í books, and likewise Template:Apostles of Bahá'u'lláh. That way we could keep a theme running. I like the blue and the green. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 02:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think at this point, all of the choices are better than the current one (mainly because of the subheading font). I would just not pick green, as that is the Islam template cover. -- Jeff3000 02:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Everyone ok with going with the blue one from User:Modify/Sandbox2. If no one comments in the next day or so, I'll switch it. -- Jeff3000 14:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do so. - Wiki-uk 16:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to come in a bit late here, but I'm wondering about crimson (#DC143C), seeing as how we're the 'companions of the Crimson Ark' and all. I suppose none of this color business is actually very important, but since we're on it I thought I'd add that. It may also be notable that, generally, Baha'u'llah's books are printed in crimson, The Bab's in green, Abdu'l-Baha's in blue, and Shoghi Effendi's in brown. -LambaJan 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Other template[edit]

Might I suggest someone also change the color and format of Template:Baha'i-2? Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Other Star[edit]

This star please!
Current star

Hi! I prefer this star. IMO it is much more friendly than the other one. --84.162.78.205 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This star looks fat to me. I prefer the current one. -- Jeff3000 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jeff! Fat sounds funny ;-) Being fat is a matter of size. I would use it a little smaller than the current one. --84.162.78.205 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the pointy star to compare. I prefer the current, more pointy star. Also, the fatter star does not have a transparent background. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 20:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello everybody! Tastes differ. German and Russian Wikipedia is using the "fat one": de:Portal:Religion and ru:Портал:Религия --Mipago 20:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So far two to one for current star. -- Jeff3000 20:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Somehow I prefer the so-called fat star as well. I realize that the debate happened four weeks ago but I thought I'd throw in my two cents. Iainsona 03:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope you get my point. The so-called fat star has a lot more harmony in it. The current one looks somehow aggressive to me. --Mipago 19:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith in fiction[edit]

apologies. I was on the portal page as the most general place for a place to link the Baha'i Faith in fiction and the smallest most general corner at the bottom of the Baha'i Faith Series seemed to be that - until I found it was posted in dozens of pages (I thought you'ld have to go to the portal page, and then go all the way to the bottom....) Anyway, I took it out after I saw that it was so often used.... Then I tried to figure out how to get it to show in the ..in fiction page and that still stumps me but it seemed a good idea.....--Smkolins 03:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Teachings[edit]

I suggest removing the list of teachings. In my opinion, it would make the template more NPOV, and there is already a link under "see also" for teachings. Cuñado Bahai star.svg - Talk 03:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

+1. I agree. --Christian Edward Gruber 08:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Pilgrimage[edit]

I would like to have a link to Pilgrimage in the 'See also' section. Any objection? Wiki-uk 12:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's necessary. I don't object, but do wonder why it'd be important. It's not a "pillar" of the religion. MARussellPESE 18:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but 'Abdu'l-Bahá states that it is “obligatory” to visit these places “if one can afford it and is able to do so, and if no obstacle stands in one’s way”.[1]. Isn't that important enough? It is also an large and informative page with the Bahá'í category, which is now indirectly accessible on the Main Page by clicking through on the word 'Pilgrimage' in the section about the Báb, or on the word 'Bahá'í World Centre' in the section Bahá'í administration. May I add it? Wiki-uk 16:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Activities[edit]

While many facts that are interesting from a historical perspective are in the Bahá'í pages, many individuals, especially college students, use the Baha'i page to get a feel for what the Bahá'í community is like. Without deviating from the fact that this is an encyclopedia, how can we include relevant concepts, as opposed to mere information, that adequately convey the new culture being established in the global community? Leif (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any basis to decide what any group is looking for?--Smkolins (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle to promote the Baha'i Faith. When reliable third-party sources document a new culture, only then can information be changed to reflect that in a neutral fashion. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Remodel of Bahai Template[edit]

{{Bahá'í 2}} I've redone the Bahai template to make it more eye appealing and space saving. Please raise any objections of why the remake shouldn't be posted before removal.

Sikandros (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all such large changes need consensus. You can see above #Proposed new look that a new look went through much discussion before one was decided upon and a newer design needs to go through the same sort of discussion to come to achieve consensus.
My thoughts of the new design are that it's too busy, distracts the reader, and hides the links. The purpose of the template is a navigation template, and the new design precisely removes its usability by removing its simplicity. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think, without a doubt, this template should be adopted. --Enzuru 06:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
And just to boost the morale of the team promoting this, everytime there is a debate whether the template should advance to a new state of loveliness or stay in its original plain format, the new format wins out, if it is logical that is. There are always editors who say it is too colorful, too distracting, which never really holds ground. Aesthetics and usability wins out, rather than the plain as Jane philosophy. You can see this taking place across all templates on Wikipedia. --Enzuru 06:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I really don't agree. The new template is completely too distracting. UI design across software GUIs and physical controls always tends towards simplicity. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jeff3000. I definitely prefer the current template over this one. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why Martha Root i.s.o. Rúhíyyih Khanum?[edit]

Is there a reason why Martha Root is on this template, and not for example Rúhíyyih Khanum? Wiki-uk (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think Martha Root played a more important role. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Nine-Pointed Star?[edit]

Is there a reason why the nine-pointed star is the symbol for all of these articles? I understand that it is more commonly used but isn't the five-pointed star the official symbol? Supergeek1694 (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Because it is the symbol that is most commonly used. Look at bahai.com, bahai.us, and generally any other Baha'i associated website, book, or otherwise, and the nine-pointed star is used. Wikipedia Manual of Style, and it's sub pages, (for example the one one naming conventions state that the most common term (or in this case symbol) be used. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a way to push thought, but to follow, and since the nine-pointer star is what is generally used, that is the way Wikipedia follows. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New template by The Quill[edit]

User:The Quill unilaterally redirected the {{Bahá'í‎}} to the new template you created {{Bahá'í‎ Faith}}, and thus the new template gets included in a large number of pages. The old template had been designed through WP:CONSENSUS over many different options, and new redesign needs to be discussed before it can be used over such many pages. The proposed new template, in my mind, is definitely poorer, both aesthetically and functionally. Aesthetically because the colours and the symbol are washed out, which leads to be it functionally less useable, as it's harder to view and navigate through the various groups in the template. Such a large change needs to be discussed before being changed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the current version that Jeff3000 reverted to. It comes down to aesthetics and I think it looks much better, being skinnier and easier to read. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Just so everyone can see this is what the template would look like; The Quill (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Positive:
  1. Nice graphic
  • Negative:
  1. Very poor contrast between "Baha'i" and the background in the title.
  2. Body text is too small.
  3. This is about 50% wider than the original, so it sucks up real estate.

MARussellPESE (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a review with actual comments. I'm working on new colours for the background so hopefully that will be fixed soon (once the right colour is found). I can change text size right away. OIn teh third point what do you mean by real estate? The Quill (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
If the template shall replace the current one, the colours used in the template should be programmable so that the colours can be maintained. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
By real estate he means make it as skinny as you can. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation Cuñado. Jeff3000 I dont understand everyone obsession with colour changes. THe whole point of a standard template it to stop have so many random colours for each infobox. The Quill (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Colour is what makes it distinctive, and makes the reader associate a template with a group of pages. The current colours are completely washed out. Having a standard template for all pages is not appropriate or desired, as you can notice from the wealth of different infoboxes for different sports. If Wikipedia wanted standard templates for everything, there would be a Manual of Style page talking about it, but there is none. Instead of pushing your view of aesthetics on everyone, you should allow the template to have programmatically allowed colours for backgrounds and texts, so that the infrastructure you have created can be used appropriately. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I like the header graphic but otherwise much prefer the conservative space used in the current template. Honestly the primary revision of the template I'd contemplate is the ability to include page specific graphics - sometimes there is graphic on a page that would be nice rather than figuring out how to get the two to share space nicely. I don't know if it's possible or others want it but that's what I spend a modest amount of time wrestling with. The interspersed dots distract especially at the end of a row of entries. The colorless sectional devisions might be nicer.Smkolins (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I made some changes to the template to make the colours parameters, but the line spacing of that template is just wrong, and this current template is just more readable and usable as way to navigate. Also based on comments on other templates you've tried to change such as Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, colours are important and your unilaterally trying to change everything is not gaining acceptance. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Width[edit]

I have gone back to the old version of the template which did not have a relative width of 25%. Having a relative width is not good practice for a number of reasons. One is that for users who have widescreen screens, the template becomes very wide, and not comparable to all other vertical templates in Wikipedia. Even if the width is set to a specific value such as 160px, by removing the precise breaks, many of the article links do not start nor end on a line, making the navigating of links more difficult, and not easier, in addition to making more cluttering to the look. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

shortened names[edit]

While I've seen them, they are informal at best and strictly not "english equivalents". The "english equivalents" are the Book of Certitude and the Most Holy Book, or the Book of Laws. As for their usage here, I think the encyclopedic usage would favor the more formal.Smkolins (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree wiht Smkolins. The current wording is best. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I just found it odd that an english wikipeia has an arabic transliterated version of the name. But as you both are experienced editors, i will trust your judgement. Someone65 (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Reversions[edit]

As with my comments on Talk:Baha'i calendar, there are some reversions here, which are disputed at best, so the discussion should happen here before we get into an edit war. The template is meant to be a summary of the main aspects of a religion as defined by notability as defined by reliable sources. Most summary statements of the religion do not mention the two individuals that are being added; only one goes into the topic in detail are those two individuals mentioned, and only in small passing. You can take Peter's Smith's "Introduction to the Baha'i Faith" published by Cambrige University Press, one of the most reliable publishers, as an example. Warm regards, -- 23:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

agreed --Smkolins (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)