Template talk:Baháʼí sidebar

message: 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  - Talk 23:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for asking Cuñado, please see this talk to better understand why it's there. Thanks. Netscott 00:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit box 

message: 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  - Talk 04:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'the' vs 'a'

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

message: 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)
replies: text: This star looks fat to me. I prefer the current one. -- Jeff3000 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: So far two to one for current star. -- Jeff3000 20:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Other Star 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bahá'í Faith in fiction  

message: 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  - Talk 03:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: +1.  I agree. --Christian Edward Gruber 08:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teachings 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Is there any basis to decide what any group is looking for?--Smkolins (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Activities

message: 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)
replies: text: Personally I think Martha Root played a more important role. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Martha Root i.s.o. Rúhíyyih Khanum? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why Nine-Pointed Star? 

message: User:The Quill unilaterally redirected the  to the new template you created , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Just so everyone can see this is what the template would look like; The Quill (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: By real estate he means make it as skinny as you can. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New template by The Quill 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Width 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree wiht Smkolins.  The current wording is best.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  shortened names 

message: 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)
replies: text: agreed --Smkolins (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversions 

message: Among Baha'is the usage would never be "Part of a series on Baha'i Faith."  There will invariably be a definite article in this context:  "Part of a series on the Baha'i Faith."  Has there been a relevant discussion on the wording for this template that someone can point me to?  Is there any objection to adding "the"?  I recall it being there at one point. modify 04:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. Smkolins (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of a series on Baha'i Faith