Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arabic culture template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
@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)
ThanksRedEye98 (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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):
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)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.