Template talk:Aqidah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This template occupies rather more space than it needs to. It would be better for its default state to be collapsed, so that on pages such as Islamic view of angels the template doesn't occupy too much of the article. All the information remains easily available. As you can see from [1], the collapsible version is commonly used. Should you really want to uncollapse it on any given article, that should be possible William M. Connolley (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

W complained that Text of first line is blocked. but I don't know what that means. Is it the colour bars, or something else? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The show button blocks the first link to the five pillars of Islam. Besides, a) the template has long been stable, b) it isn't long, and c) the "collapse" functionality hides important information in this case, as readers often want to read each pillar/item mentioned by every section anyway (considering that many of these items are shared and of interest to all sects). Thus none of your arguments for editing this template are compelling. Wiqi(55) 18:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't look like that to me. It looks like
. What browser are you using? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
And having just checked, it looks about the same (ie, fine) on Firefox and IE too William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Firefox on Gnu/Linux. Looked fine before your edits. Also, what about the other two points? You do realize that almost of these items are shared between all sects, and there is no point in collapsing them, as that will make the template less useful. Wiqi(55) 19:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you post a screenshot? I suspect the trivial solution is just to widen the template a fraction, but I don't know how much. As to the other points, see for example Akhbar (Shia Islam) (or Islamic leadership, or...) which has a (different) template in its "hidden" state, or indeed I could reference huge numbers of other pages. Most pages with templates don't even put them upfront, but tend to tuck them away at the bottom. Using two large templates just isn't very useful. Specifically: (b) it isn't long? I think it is reasonably long, particularly wrt the size of some of the articles it is in and (c) hides important info? Well, collapse obviously hides something; but the template, being a template, isn't article-specific so there is no assumption that all the info has to be always immeadiately visible William M. Connolley (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Unlike the other templates, the collapse functionality here hides information about "pillars" that are shared between all sections. So even those interested in the Sunni section will also find something useful and directly relevant in the Shia/Kharijite sections. Most readers would want to see them all without additional clicks. Second, I see no point to your edits. The template Islam now looks broken too, and there are some problem with show buttons and general looks. You obviously lack aesthetic judgment. So long. Wiqi(55) 20:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You obviously lack aesthetic judgment - but if all this comes down to look-n-feel, there is no real way to resolve the issue. Do you really see no point at all to my edits? I have tried to explain them; I'd have hoped you would agree that (all other things equal) shorter is better. That is the point, really William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
And yet another example of the use of a collapsed template is at Ma malakat aymanukum and sex William M. Connolley (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Or, the 3 templates at the foot of Medicine in medieval Islam. Collapsed templates are commonplace; indeed, the norm. I'm still baffled as to why you are so opposed in this case William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just tried it on a random linux and it looked fine; the same as on windoze in fact William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Still hoping for some kind of discussion rather than just reversion from Wiqi55. Not really sure what No reply on the shared pillars issue is supposed to mean, but I'd still like to see a screen shot of the supposed "bad" state, and some kind of ustification for the non-collapsed state, given the multiple evidence of use of collapsed templates elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, here is the part that you have ignored the last time: "Unlike the other templates, the collapse functionality here hides information about "pillars" that are shared between all sections. So even those interested in the Sunni section will also find something useful and directly relevant in the Shia/Kharijite sections. Most readers would want to see them all without additional clicks." Wiqi(55) 19:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Since when do you speak for "Most readers". And I'm still waiting for a screenshot from you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this template useful?[edit]

The first line of template:Islam ("beliefs") links to Aqidah, which redirects to Islamic theology. Which doesn't include the template. So for example on Islamic view of angels what is the point of having this template, since that page also uses the Islam template? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the addition of the schools of divinity but I've corrected it[edit]

There is no such thing as "salaffiyah" as a school of divinity, salafis are Athari in their school of Aqeedah. Sakimonk talk 00:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Murjiah and using "extinct"[edit]

The list is not accurate, Mu'tazili is the main shia school but historically it was heavily adopted by those sunni in fiqh (like hanafi mutazilis). So it should be an OTHER school. Moreover, Murjia are definately NOT extinct, some scholars argue that a HUGE proportion of Muslims are influence by murjia philsophy hence why so many muslims you come across don't pray salah! I've named it Other schools because they are alive and kicking sadly lol. Sakimonk talk 17:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay but they aren't shia exclusively Sakimonk talk 17:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Just put the schools listed under shia as other, except bataniyah, that's all im asking. because many who follow them weren't shia. Only in modern times it is mostly shia thanks to the dawah of the Sunni leaders following the crusades and Imam Ghazali etc. most Sunnis gave up these deviant ideas but shias kept them. Sakimonk talk 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Also can you fix the bracket under sunni Islam, it looks so ugly! Sakimonk talk 17:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)