This template is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This template is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the template attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
I think this distinction is not necessary. the purpose of the template is so that people can find other astronomers easily, not to get a 1-UP is the Arab V Persian fight.
The fact is, most of these astronomers wrote in Arabic, so the distinction (arab or persian) is not going to help anyone find any particular astronomer. It would be best divided in another way (by century?)--Aa2-2004 (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term Islamic astronomy is as absurd as "Christian chemistry". The scientists are always called by their nationalities: American scientists, Chinese scholars etc. If you use the argument that because many Japanese astronomers now write also in English and because of that we're going to call them "English scientists" and their science as "Christian astronomy" then you can revert this template.--ماني a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. "Discussed many times" is not a good argument. Please answer to my arguments before reverting.--ماني a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit is controversial and has not been discussed at all. These articles have been renamed many times in the past, but the consensus has settled towards the use of the term "medieval Islam" or "medieval Islamic world", which is used frequently by the academic literature. Also, your edit has done a lot more than renaming the tile, you reverted more than 20 edits by other editors that cleaned up the template and added scholars that were not listed before, which you have not provided an explanation for. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added more information to the template and there is nothing controversial about it. What you do is eliminating interesting information from the template for no logical reason.--ماني a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't add anything, all what you did was reverting to a much older version of the template, thus removing the dozens of scholars who have been added to the template and more importantly, reverting the major work Wiqi55 has done in re-factoring and cleaning up this template here. I already notified you on your talk page, the next time I'll notify the appropriate board for this behaviour. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you do is like trying to delete informations like superorders from this template just because you have something against superorders. Origin of those scholars is a very useful information in that template and your behaviour which mixes personal racial feelings with science should be reported to the board. If you want to add more scholars to the template you add them to the current version not first vandalizing it and then adding more names to make the reverting complicated.--ماني a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Unopposed move buidhe 09:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutral per scope of topic. The template seems designed for medieval topics, while extending it too all of Islamic history would dilute the topic map and change the direction of the template. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's your support for why medieval Islam and Islam (Islamic) are two different things in this context? PPEMES (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it does seem consistent with the other history templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the time covered doesn't seem limited to the Middle Ages? PPEMES (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.jpg){kind=small}
