Template talk:Islamic culture

Created!

Template created. Like, a few days ago. --Enzuru 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard to read

I love the look, but the black background makes the blue text hard to read, and having a big black bar down the right side of the article is extremely distracting. klosterdev (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think a lighter shade of blue would work? And do non-black colorful templates such as Template:Islam and Template:Buddhism do the same to you? --Enzuru 03:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a really well-made template, but I'm going to have to side with 'hard to read.' It just doesn't fit with Wikipedia's aesthetic of simplicity and overall white/light-colors. Geeks like us might find it cool but ultimately the average reader doesn't need this kind of fanciness and it just looks out of place. If this were a magazine the editor would immediately flag it. Sorry guys. Don't ditch it, just shelve it for another time. Parqbench (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the constrast of a dark background on a mostly light page makes my eyes ache. The blending of the image into the background is pretty, but the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to be informative and useful, not attractive. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some changes to make it more readable. This is the older revision, and this is the newer one. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's gorgeous!

I am surprised to find myself saying this about a Wikipedia navigation template, but this is the most beautiful template I have ever seen. I love how at the bottom of the image, the darkness blends into the black color of the template. The blue on black is simple to read; even on my crappy old CRT. I love it. Don't change a thing. Whatever404 (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Your words lightened up my night, really. --Enzuru 02:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a fan, too. Looks great! /Ninly (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Great job, its definitly the best template out there!Baku87 (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree too. I am simply stunned that there exists such a beautiful template on Wikipedia. I'm impressed! Great job! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, nice work! This is a really outstanding example of what we can do to make Wikipedia more beautiful and appealing to the reader. Kudos to the creators! Scartol • Tok 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This image seems more suited as a header not the Taj. I love Taj but a more appropriate picture is needed. Like this one. Image:Mosque_of_Cordoba_Spain.jpg --195.194.2.4 (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I swear, this is the greatest template Wikipedia has ever seen! Whoever did this should be commended. Mexp2 21:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

The articles within the template should be put in alphabetical order. Baku87 (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, go for it. It was hectic enough for me to get the articles together in the template, so I kinda had a semi-random order. --Enzuru 18:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright its been done, great job on the template by the way, looks fantastic! Baku87 (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And wonderful job on the order! I think nerves of steel are needed to do that kind of work. I get so confused and muddled when I attempt it. --Enzuru 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bengali Literature

Is the inclusion valid? Since the south asian literature is included in the template, and the maximum of the Bengali Literature is not Islamic, I think the inclusion is not proper. Jeroje (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The maximum of the Bengali literature? I'm sorry (I'm really stupid sometimes), I don't understand, can you rephrase? --Enzuru 22:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

ok here it is: to speak of maximum , let \phi be the counting measure on the set of bengali literature, which just counts the literary contributions throughout the history of Bengali language. and lets assume that there are subsets defined as follows , A = the set of islamic contributions , and let B be the complement of it as included in the set of all bengali literature, then I what I meant by maximum is evident from the following proposition :

prop: \phi(B) > \phi(A), and furthermore the set of literary excellences included in A is contained in a set of measure zero \subset of B. the proof is contained in the in-line links in this post and is trivial.

since french literature is not listed in the template , even though the morrocans and the congo people speak it, I will remove bengali literature from this template. or what one can do is to list all the literatures in all possible languages where islamic culture is present, or make a separate article called Bangladeshi literature and include it here. Jeroje (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Islam has had a huge effect on Bengali literature, particular in Bangladesh. Because of this, I will keep it in the template. It has not had a similiar effect on French literature: of the 175 million French speakers in the world, 129 million live in Europe while Bangladesh has more than double the population of the 70 million Bengalis that India has. --Enzuru 05:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I will remove bengali from this template since the islamic bangladeshi literature is atmost 10s of years old , where the indian bengali literary tradition is atleast 50 times older than that. the population argument has nothing to do with literature. Jeroje (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Muslim Bengalis have outnumbered Hindu Bengalis for a long time before Bangladesh was ever created, and therefore have made a huge contribution to literature. Also, age does not matter. And you yoursself started this population argument. Please don't take out Bengali literature without a good reason. --Enzuru 19:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, see Bengali literature for the amount of Muslim writers you can find. I believe they outnumber Hindu writers in that article. Both Hinduism and Islam have had an influence on Bengali literature, but you can't deny one of them didn't. I am not saying Bengali is exclusively Islamic, because it isn't. --Enzuru 19:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

look out numbered by population is not a reason, since it is not exclusively islamic just as english literature is not exclusively islamic (even though there are lot of muslim english writer around ) and since you did not include english in this template , I see no reason to include bengali literature. I am removing this, and please dont put it back until the issue is resolved. and better still I would have preferred this religious stuff out of bengali language altogether. Jeroje (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My friend, Islam has not had the effect on English literature that it has had on Bengali literature. Yes, numbers do matter: if there are two Muslim writers in a language compared to millions over centuries. There is no language that is exclusively Islamic, not even Arabic which has had great works of Jewish literature. Please see the following links:

• Muslim ethos in Indian Literature
• Islamic Themes in Premodern Bengali Literature and Life
• Bangla literature

You said citation needed so here are your citations. --Enzuru 02:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

furthermore as i pointed out earlier that you have included south asia, I think thats more than enough. if you are concerned about bangladeshi literature not being represented in the template. please write a separate article namely islamic bengali literature and include it here. Jeroje (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

South Asia and Pakistan are included, as well as the sub-languages which have been influenced by the literature. Should I just include Asian literature and African literature and nothing else in the template, since almost every single country in here is either from Asia or Africa? Bengali literature has been in here for a long time. If Bengali literature can't be included, no literature here can be included, including Persian, Azeri, and so forth. --Enzuru 02:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

if islam had no effect on english literature then it had similar or no effect on bengali literature as well. and if inclusion of persian etc is dependent on inclusion of bengali literature then it shows the pointlessness of the whole concept which is not an excuse. as for the notes you included i am not buying that that bengali literature is included in islamic culture even if they are creaming that on top of their voice. either you dont include this or you say had some effect on bengali literature (and then ofcourse you add that french or english had similar effects ) Jeroje (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Islam arrived in the region of Bengal, particularly in what is known as Bangladesh, it has influenced some parts of the Bengali literature since at least 15th century, and has played a great role in modern society, so I don't really see the problem of having Bengali literature there, because even though it may not be entirely Islamic, some parts of it has influenced the literature.[1] Mohsin (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

as User: Enzuru noticed that some part of any literature is islamic and even if islam entered the bengali sphere is 15th century( i take your word for that ) the literary part was not influenced by it until ( also to a partial respect, meaning only to the literature or whatever the possible ramification of it in the bangladeshi literature ) recently. so i dont see a point of including the all length and bredth of bengali literature in islamic culture. Jeroje (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A significant portion is important, 500 years is important. The United States has only been a nation for a little over 200 years, and yet it already has its own literary tradition, let alone Islam existing in Bangladesh and being the religion of the majority of Bengalis for a long period of time. What in the world do we have to do to prove this to you? I've given you citations, I've given you population. There is nothing you are willing to understand, you've already made up your mind. --Enzuru 22:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

By your definition Jeroje, then we should exclude every national literature, save for Arabic literature, which has been heavily influenced by Islam. Persian literature did not have any Islamic influences in it even years after the Islamic conquest of the Sassanian Empire. Therefore, to exclude Bengali literature because it has only been partially influenced by Islamic literature is nonsensical and contradictory to the presence of other literature who have in some parts of their history (a major part of their history in the cases of Iranian literature) been without Islamic influence. Besides, I would argue that for the majority of Bengali literature's existence, it has been Islamically influenced. Gabr-el 01:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

if we have to exclude persian if we exclude bengali then so be it. why is it absolutely necessary to list all the literary traditions which had some contacts with islamic culture escapes my understanding. " I would argue that for the majority of Bengali literature's existence, it has been Islamically influenced." thats an interesting claim but false. actually until 1930s or so there were not even a seizable group of moslem writers in bengal. before that era the only literature of islamic contents are 1. some translation works in feudal time. 2. Kazi Nazrul Islam in modern time. and they are all. and regarding persia, only one rumi or a khoiam is enough to speak of in support of its islamic literary tradition. look friends its nothing like a contest or something, branding bengali literature in islamic culture is too wrong, since its too multipolar in religion and religious literature. you know even the buddhist contribution to the sum of bengali literature is far greater than the islamic influence. as for the notes Enzuru mentions i am very sad to say that all of them are too biased or not complete enough or not conclusive. Jeroje (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said all literature with Islamic influence, I said with sizeable Islamic influence, like Bengali literature. Here is the deal, you give me good citations proving the lack of Islamic influence on Bengali litrature as I gave you citations proving its influence, or else I will put Bengali literature back in there within the next few days. These cannot be biased Hindutva and the like sources, show me something tangible. It's in your hands to give citations now. --Enzuru 06:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have no contention that other religions have influenced Bengali literature, even more. I simply am saying Islamic literature has had a huge influence on Bengali literature, as per my citations. So bring your own now and we can discuss. --Enzuru 06:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

fair and square, and now since you brought up the word hindutva i can also speak of islamist sources. Jeroje (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Islamist sources are a huge problem, I agree. But I didn't link to any Islamist sources, I linked to non-religious secular sources, like the last two links (the first was a Muslim site). --Enzuru 06:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

the banglapedia website is official bangladeshi encyclopedia site Jeroje (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

http://uncpress.unc.edu/pdfs/SampleChapters/9780807830215_uddin_constructing_ch1.pdf does not look good either, looks like a masters thesis. can you tell me who is the author of this ? Jeroje (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an author for it, but it doesn't seem like a bad source. Once again, provide some sources to the contrary, and perhaps I'll provide better sources as well. So far, at least we have sources for this view. --Enzuru 08:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[Deindenting] I am confused by the drama: why wouldn't Bengali be included? Can someone clarify why it was removed? Err... in this case, Jeroje. I mean, as oppossed to other Indian languages spoken by heavily Muslim communities, what makes Bangali special? the Ogress _smash! 07:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that it might add to your confusion, to know why bangla is special. apart from that isnt there a chinese saying that even a thousand miles journey starts with a single step ? Jeroje (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's all good and fine, I'm waiting on your sources. But yeah, she does bring up the valid point of why in the world Bangla is different from the other Indian languages we have on here. --Enzuru 08:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a problem in general with including literature from different ethnic/cultural areas sweepingly under the umbrella of 'Islamic culture'. A lot of Bengali, Kashmiri, etc. literature probably had nothing at all to do with Islam or religion. Much of this literature apparently predates Islam as well (c.f. Kashmiri literature). Literature, arts etc. did indeed play a large role in Islamic civilisation, and while much of the developments and breakthroughs in the varying fields were inspired by Islamic civilisation, they weren't necessarily inherently religion-oriented in and of themselves. It's important to get the right balance and not include too much in this template on the basis of generally weak links. So perhaps there's some cleaning up to do... ITAQALLAH 00:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So far, it's under the umbrella of heavy influence. Who would doubt the influence of Sufism on Kashmiri literature? But if we do need to clean up, that's fine, conversely, we can put in forms of literature as well. --Enzuru 00:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This template is about "Islamic culture" not the "Islamic faith". Therefore I think that popular Muslim cultural concepts can be included, whether or not they relate with Islam.Bless sins (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am busy in an important conference in these two weeks, hold on to your horses. I will be back by 10th dec. thank you, Jeroje (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No problemo, we'll keep it off till January, insha'Allah. --Enzuru 22:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Taj Mahal?

The template is fantastic, but I have a bit of a concern about the picture of Taj Mahal. The Taj Mahal was built by a Mughal ruler out of love for his wife. The Taj Mahal is not a mosque and it is more of a symbol of love, and has got little to do with Islam. I suggest this be replaced with the picture of the Ka'aba or other more prominent Islamic monument as the picture of the Taj Mahal is misleading. Shijaz (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about Islam, it's about Islamic culture, what Muslims have done because of the influence of Islam, even in non-religious areas. If you read about the Taj Mahal, it is considered one of the greatest representations of Muslims art and architecture in the world by historians. The Kaaba is religious not cultural, it isn't considered a part of Muslim art. --Enzuru 03:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand if culture is any different from religion - when it comes to Islam (which is a 'way of life')!Shijaz (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Culture is very different! Islam is considered on Wikipedia a religion like any other, and the culture of it differs from country to country. You don't have Qawwali in Egypt, and you don't have Narouz (considered Ali's birthday by some in Iran) in India! And the architecture differs from country to country... and even basic beliefs (Sunni, Shi'a, Barelwi, Ismaili) are all very different! Islam is a mosaic, not a monolith. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Islam is a relegion and the Islamic culture is that based on Islam, the Taj Mahal has nothing to do with Islam and the Islamic culture since like mentioned before it is not a mosque at all, as for the art, it is not Islamic, it is inspired by it but it is not, it does have something to do with the eastern culture but unfortunatley not Islam maybe a picture for other mosques like Mohammed Ali's Mosque in Egypt or anything to actually represent the Islamic culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.218.172.175 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks great, it's a stunning looking template but Taj Mahal represents, to most people, India, and not Islamic culture. I think it'd make more sense to choose a picture that will make people think of Islam instead of a specific country (where the majority isn't even muslim). 126.109.230.23 (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Taj Mahal has nothing to do with Islam or Islamic culture. It should be REMOVED and replaced by a mosque or a place of Islamic heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.2.4 (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The taj mahal is a resting place of a Muslim queen who has no relation to the culture of Islam. The activities of Muslims are not Islamic culture. The image should be changed as it is not accurate representation.

The finial is topped by a moon, a typical Islamic motif whose horns point heavenward. Because of its placement on the main spire, the horns of the moon and the finial point combine to create a trident shape, reminiscent of traditional Hindu symbols of Shiva.

— Taj Mahal

So as the quote suggests the Taj is influenced by the two major religion of the country.Mmmuntaizm (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

References

The best template on Wikipedia

This is hands down the best template on Wikipedia and all WikiProjects. I'm stunned by its beauty. I would like to create a template that (even remotely) resembles its simplicity and elegance.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought that the recent change of bolding the letters and making it bigger was going to make it fugly but I'm really really happy you said this. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 05:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW I'm currently attending Cal Poly Pomona. o_o; --♥pashtun ismailiyya 05:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Go Poly!!! If you ever would like to help improve Cal Poly Pomona-related articles, we have a WikiProject devoted to it, in the meantime, keep on making more stunning templates!--Dabackgammonator (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I have to agree. A striking and attractive navigation template. I'm very impressed! Good work, Pashtun Ismailiyya! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I love it too. It looks amazing how the image fades into the template. —D'Agosta ( ^T⁄_C ) 01:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Co-sign all the above. Utterly gorgeous template; kudos! Middayexpress (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Added. This template itself is a reason to make a "Featured templates" category. Makes me think that we could do a lot more to make Wikipedia more aesthetically pleasing as well as informative. causa sui× 23:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I love how the black in the lower part of the image flows into the background colour of the box, as well as how the blue script reflects with the sky. Hands down one of the most aesthetic templates. Gryffindor (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I love the way the template renders to Islamic Cultural aspect. A magnificent Taj at the start of Template encompasses the bravura. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.129.62 (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hiding the template

I certainly agree with the above comments about the template, but could someone experienced with wiki-syntax make it optionally collapsible without ruining it? It just looks awkward on Sufi whirling. Recognizance (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For a quick fix I tried moving images around on that article. Collapsible would be difficult, but not impossible to pull off with the current style of the template. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not too keen on the way the page renders, but thanks for your effort. The issue could also be solved by increasing the article length, which I planned to research when I get more free time. As someone unfamiliar with the topic though, my main obstacle in my brief google attempts was the overlap and inherent link between sufi whirling and sema. Recognizance (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The image in the template

Wouldn't it be better to use an image other than the Taj Mahal or any other mausoleum. Islamic culture, for sure has images other than a Mausoleum. True it is representative, but isn't an Islamic graveyard also so. Islamic culture has particularly evolved as a response to certain guidelines laid down by Islam. So having an Islamic symbol should be paramount. Nothing represents Islam better than the Ka'aba. Eager to hear feedback/criticisms/opinions etc. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 09:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up to discussion. Aside from the WP:Consensus above favouring the current version, I'd like to quote about this mausolem the article on the Taj Mahal which states, 'In 1983, the Taj Mahal became a UNESCO World Heritage Site and was cited as "the jewel of Muslim art in India and one of the universally admired masterpieces of the world's heritage."' The sources don't seem to just see it as a minor contribution of Islam or even a minor symbol of its culture. Additionally, Islam and Islamic culture are not necessarily the same or even in agreement. There are elements of Islamic culture for example that oppose common jurispudential rulings. For example, the majority of jurispudents will say music is haraam while music is integral to Islamic culture. While the Ka'aba is a religious symbol of Islam, it is not a cultural symbol that displays the contributions of Muslims in the fields of architecture, art, and so forth. And when it comes to that, little to nothing is as recognized and iconic as the Taj Mahal. Plus, as per the aforementioned consensus, the template looks very sexy with the current picture which was specifically designed with it in mind. --Afghana ^[talk] 10:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That may be true about how the Mughals influenced Islam in the region but this particular site is not part of a place of worship! It needs to be corrected! A place of worship or a historical site where a war was fought would be more appropriate. --195.194.2.4 (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Taj Mahal was built by Sahjahan as a symbol of love as a gift for Mamataj. Though Shahjahan was a Muslim mughal emperor, Taj mahal symbolizes love rather than Islamic culture. রাহাত | ✉ 11:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@Mar4d: This is not a decade old conversation. Last response is from 2013. Taj Mahal is less of Islamic compared to Kabaa as per consensus here. Taj Mahal is symbol of love, how it becomes more islamic than Kabaa? D4iNa4 (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It features prominently as a symbol of Islamic architecture, so your original research does not hold weight. And the Kaaba is not a cultural site. Mar4d (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the Taj Mahal is fine. It's an iconic image and it highlights the fact that Islamic culture, as our article defines it following academic usage, is not limited to religious culture. Eperoton (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The name of Allah

The word "Allah" is located in the lower part of the template which makes it inappropriate for some. Is it possible to kindly move it up, or remove it at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.174.27 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Culture and religion

Despite the many overlaps between them, there is a difference between culture and religion. That distinction isn't often made in the modern world, and this seems to be especially so with Islam. Most people, Muslims included, will say that the reason is because Islam is "a way of life" and can't be separated from other aspects. This may have some truth to it but I personally think the main underlying reason for this is due to global stereotypes of what it means to be a follower of the Islamic faith. How many times has someone used the word "Muslim" as if it refers to an ethnic group? How many times has any form of art been categorised as "Islamic" because it was made by a Muslim, even if it has nothing to do with religion? I think this template should make some attempt at not giving too broad a definition of what constitutes Islamic culture. For my opinion on the Taj Mahal image, I'd think a mosque would be more representative, but the Taj Mahal does have a religious connection that goes beyond simply being made by a Muslim and is therefore appropriate. However, a line must be drawn somewhere, and I think adding in so-called "Islamic martial arts" is going too far. First of all, most martial arts practiced in the Middle East have no religious connection. To call wrestling an Islamic martial art is like saying that boxing is Christian. Fighting arts practiced by Muslims in India were created primarily by Hindus. The Southeast Asian martial art of silat is absolutely not "Muslim". While there are specific styles which may dress themselves in a heavily Islamic attitude, silat is a very broad term which predates Islam and still bears a strong Hindu-Buddhist element. For that reason I have removed martial arts from the template as well as Malay architecture, which only redirects to the architecture section of the Ethnic Malays page. Morinae (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sama (Sufism) & Jem (Alevism) under Theatre

put Sama (Sufism) and Jem (Alevism) or some other place 68.100.160.250 (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Restore the old template

The template should obviously reflect cultural achievements, not merely religion. Removing the Taj Mahal version was a POV push.--Bazaan (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2015

68.150.95.190 (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 08:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2015

eid al-ghadeer is bullshit! muslims never observe that kind of holiday. only those shia who celebrate it. fyi, they are not muslim. so please remove eid al-ghadeer and those stupid shia's holidays! thank you for your cooperation. salaam 111.94.44.190 (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. But to be as frank to you as you try to be to the rest of the world: given your rude remarks I doubt you'll get anywhere with your proposal. Repeat something like this and be sure to be blocked. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2020

add "Indonesian" in architecture 139.192.148.51 (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

About picture

I didn't see the published picture related or suitable for the template, you can see the difference between the last published picture in this template and the picture in Template:Christian culture and how it good and suitable and acceptable to Christian culture. --Amrahlawymasry (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Large use of "real estate" on side of screen

This quite long sidebar is using a lot of space on the right hand side of the articles involved, making image placement difficult, or causing gaps to appear if there are image galleries. This really isn't acceptable.

The best solution would be to move the navbox from the side, where it consumes space, to be a navbar (at the bottom) where (collapsed) it doesn't.

An alternative would be to collapse the sidebar section by section so it's a lot smaller and less obtrusive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Belated reply but just bringing this up again to express support for either solution suggested above, with preference for making it a bottom navbar. (I might have tried it myself, but I have no technical experience with this type of conversion.)

An even more radical alternative, but one that might actually be useful to readers if we want to keep the sidebar on the side, would be to remove the subarticles for each section and just keep the links to the respective overview articles (i.e. Islamic art, Islamic literature, etc). This would keep it compact and practical, while also avoiding the problem of the semi-arbitrary/inconsistent selection of subtopic links in each section. R Prazeres (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Not much editor engagement on this template, so as a compromise in the meantime, I've consolidated some of the link clutter in the "Architecture" and "Art" sections, while at the same time trying to fill some gaps to ensure access to relevant major topics that readers should expect to see alongside the remaining links. However, my familiarity with the other topics (like clothing and music) is much more limited, so I didn't touch those. If someone is willing to look and trim any redundancy in other sections, it might help reduce the sidebar's size. In particular: we should avoid linking subtopic articles if a more general article exists that covers them and others. (For example, I removed Iznik pottery and linked Islamic pottery instead, which covers Iznik and also other pottery subtopics not linked here). R Prazeres (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)