Template talk:Baháʼí texts sidebar

I like it.

Some minor thoughts:

• could it be changed later if there is a need to add another book once an article is written (psst. Kitáb-i`Ahd)? I don't know much about these technical things, but it seems like it would.
• about consistancy with the general Bahá'í template, if that is a concern, the main one is thinner and has a dark grey border and the colored headings don't reach the edge border, which I think is a pretty classy thing to do.
• green seems a nice color, do you think it's too dark? (again with respect to consistancy) the only other color that comes to mind that would be nice for books is brown, but with all the blue and grey all over the wiki site you probably made a better choice with green.

Again, I like it. As far as I'm concerned it can go out as it is. As a newbie I'd like to say that I respect all of the contributions you and a few others have made. I just gave some critiques because you asked for them. LambaJan 19:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

After trying for a long time. I can't figure out why the main Baha'i template adds spaces on the sides of the colored headings, or why the background is grey, or why the border is grey. If anyone else knows what they're doing please try. I had problems with templates before. Cuñado - Talk 14:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, yes, if you edit the template, all the pages using the template will also be changed. You can see I just added two books. You can add a template to a page by typing the code: {{Bahá'í books}} on the page. Cuñado - Talk 06:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! You got the spaces on the sides! I just noticed something though... The background color of the ringstone image is white and the other background is off-white. I don't know if this is what still looks off to you, but you can see the edges. LambaJan 23:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The picture is .png, and it supports transparency (ie, the background is "clear" and not white), and on a firefox browser it loads as transparent, but on an Internet Explorer browser it appears as white. I don't know why, if someone knows what they're doing please fix it. You might notice that the main Baha'i template has the same problem. Cuñado - Talk 11:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting, because I am using the firefox browser and it's still white. btw- do you have to type in all of that stuff every time to get your custom signature? I'm assuming yo don't. Maybe there's a tutorial you could direct me to. LambaJan 18:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's a tutorial: on the top right of your page, next to your name and "log out", click on preferences, then under "nickname" you can type in some code and save. If you're not sure how to format it, there's a help link on the second line of the page.

OK I have no idea about the transparency. On my computer it works in firefox but not in IE. Cuñado - Talk

I like the look of the template, but is it really appropriate to use the ringstone symbol in this context? It just feels a little too casual, but that could just be me. Is there any reason we shouldn't just use the nine-pointed star from the general Bahá'í Faith template? It seems like that would keep a bit more cohesion, so anyone who had seen the Bahá'í Faith page could conceivabley run into an article on the Kitáb-i-Íqán accidentally and still be able to immediately recognize it as a Bahá'í topic, without having to learn and remember two symbols (even ignoring the "Texts & Scriptures of the Bahá'í Faith" bit). Keldan 02:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

I have reverted the change in the template's look and all the pages it was included in. The changes made were dramatic and affected the layout of 10s of pages, and thus such a change should be discussed here first. I for one, don't like the new layout as the thin layout fits best in most of the pages the template is placed in, since they are mostly short. A better solution would be to make a new template {{Bahá'í books-2}} that has a new layout, and only include it in pages where its placement makes sense rather than change 10s of pages. Regards, -- Jeff3000 12:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wholesale changes deserve discussion. MARussellPESE 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have appreciated a note on my talk page, if you were just going to go and revert dozens of my edits and nearly two hours of work, but, I happened to peek in at my Contribs this afternoon, so here I am. The issue I found with the vertical template was the fact that it interfered with proper image formatting on many (almost all, especially the book articles) of the pages on which it resided. The lead images were jammed in at the left, above the table of contents, without frames or captions. The TOC had to be squished in beside the template. In general, this resulted in the whole top of all of those article looking mushed and unaesthetic.

In simple-reverting back all of my changes, you not only reverted the placement of the template, but also my work captioning and formatting every front cover image I encountered. Additionally, on Some Answered Questions, you reverted my conversion of a list to prose. (As well as my fixing of an unecessary format hack which resulted from the vertical template). You could just as easily have reverted the template and made new edits which did not completely erase the work I did formatting and captioning images.

If you look at, say, God Passes By, the article that drew this to my attention, you'll see what I'm talking about. Here's my version. Compare that to the current one, with a frameless, captionless image floating over at the left. Image guidelines and general precedent from a sampling of articles suggest that most images should be set up like the example image on that page (that is, to the top right, framed, and captioned). Stacking the image atop the template doesn't work (I tried a few methods before I gave up and re-did the template) and would look silly anyway.

I hope you can see where I was coming from now. ♠PMC♠ 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

While I see where you are coming from, I still don't like the newly proposed formatting. Firstly, I don't believe book covers need thumbnails, they are self-describing. Secondly, if you would like moving the image to the right, it can easily be done by moving the template down below the first subheading. Replacing a template that is used in multiple pages to fix what-you-believe are aesthetic problems in a subset of of the pages is problematic, because it ruins the placement of the template in the other pages. Thirdly what you see as mushed and unaesthetic, is very subjective, just as I don't see it as so, and thus I stand by my first comment on this page, that such a large change affect 10s of articles needs to be discussed first. Regards, -- Jeff3000 00:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've placed your version of the template (with a slight colour change) at {{Bahá'í books-2}}. Now the articles that are quite short, can be switched to the new template, without messing up the other pages which work well with the vertical template. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't believe book covers need thumbnails, they are self-describing. - You may not, but image guidelines suggest that images should be framed, captioned, and placed at the top right of a page. As for being self-describing, they in some ways but are not in others. Additional information can be provided about the images in the captions that is not self-explanatory or immediately evident - such as edition, year of publishing, or other pertinent details particular to the book in the image (for example, "front cover of the first edition of God Passes By; this particular copy was posessed by [name], an important figure of the faith." Or whatever else may be pertinent, I don't know.) Additionally, the framed/captioned images are standard, and simply look better than images which float off to the left unbordered.

As for the fat bottom template, many templates look that way now. You should consider it on its own merits, not the merits of a few stub pages it may reside on. It can fit much more information than the slim one can. It really isn't so hideous. ♠PMC♠ 05:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the religious templates used are the tall skinny variety, (Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, etc) and the most prominent location of this template is on the non-stub pages, and changing the look of the template to deal with the stub pages is not logical in my opinion. -- Jeff3000 13:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, but you're ignoring my other point about image formatting. Image format guidelines suggest top right and formatted, not floating off to the left. That can't be done with the vertical template, as it is. And on the stub pages, there's often no lead section/table of contents to tuck the picture under, as is done on Bible. ♠PMC♠ 02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

For most of the pages it can be done by moving the template down, and for those that it can't (a small minority) the better idea is to create a new template (which is what I've done) and place it on that small subset of pages instead of modifying the current one and then changing all other pages (both non-stub pages that have a picture in the left, and the more prominent pages that have the template much lower on the page) to match the new pattern. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nine Pointed Star

As the Nine Pointed Star is (according to Shoghi Effendi) not the symbol of the religion, would it be more prudent to replace it with a more accurate symbol? Peter Deer (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's the most recognizable symbol, and other symbols can be confusing. If the House chooses to use the nine-pointed star in much of its material, it's the symbol that should be here. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)