Template talk:Infobox Sura

Quran Task Force[edit]

I tried to edit the number of the Cave Surah: it's 18, not 18 106 as it appears in the box, but the editing is not working. Can someone please edit it properly? Thanks MindSpirit (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC) MindSpirit[reply]

I removed unnecessary number 106 from the template. I think it's now working correctly. Best regards--CERminator (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject:Islam Quran Task Force[edit]

As Salam Alaikum. I have recommended the formation of a Quran task force under the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam to standardize articles on all the sura's of the Quran. Please discuss here:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam#Quran Task Force.
Btw, about Para: The Quran is divided into 30 Paras. The "number of para" indicates tha para in which the surah occurs. -- ĐõÇ §αмέЄЯ 02:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

Should this template be semi-protected? Kabad (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision[edit]

I think this is a good start. We probably needed something like this. I just want to list some issues I have with this and let others comment:

Color: no precedent in other areas... we should probably use a color more like on the NL template
Image: I'm not sure the image should be part of the box... but, having the name of the sura under the image after we already have it at the top seems redundant.
Variables: should be simplified. Screenshot_of_Surah should be image. Name of surah should be name, etc.
Size: it's getting a little large... not sure it's an issue yet but it may become one
Explanation: will be needed for ruku, etc. I didn't know suras had a number of ruku... do they? and... can that be explained to me and those reading.

--gren グレン 08:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I echo all of the problems noted by Gren. I'm equally confused as to what some of the parameters are supposed to denote. I also think that describing what subjects are discussed in different verses is unnecessary. We can leave that to the article. -- tariqabjotu 12:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest...

name – in place of Name of Surah
name-ar – in place of Arabic_name
name-en – in place of Meaning_of_name, which really is a translation of the name
image – in place of Screenshot_of_Surah
classification
othernames – in place of Other_names
number – in place of Sura_number
paras – in place of Para_number, although I'm not sure what this means
revelation &ndash in place of Time_of_revelation
rukus – in place of Number_of_Rukus, although I'm not sure what this means
ayats – in place of Number_of_Ayats
words – in place of Number_of_words
letters – in place of Number_of_letters
Harf-e-Mukatta'at – I'm not sure what this means
subjects – in place of Subjectwise_ayat, although I think this is unnecessary; leave this for the article
sajdah – in place of Number of sijdahs

I also suggest we remove the caption parameter; it's unnecessary. -- tariqabjotu 12:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty good to me and I agree with removing caption. I think we may want to remove the image too... not every sura will have an image and this proliferation of like the one on Al-Falaq isn't really helpful... sure it's called the dawn... but, we don't need an image of dawn for the sura. I'd at least make the image area optional so it doesn't show up if you don't use an image parameter. gren グレン 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image can be optional. It seemed like the original creator of the template was thinking of just pictures of pages from each surah. -- tariqabjotu 09:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created a new cleaned-up, more uniform and clearer version of this infobox at User:Muslimsson/new sura infobox (check here for some examples of how it would look). I added automated links to Arabic text files here on Wikipedia as well as English translations at CRCC. Navigational arrows at the top make for easy browsing between suras. I used most of Tariqabjotu's suggestions in naming the parameters. The "image" field was omitted; I think any relevant images are best included outside of the infobox. Especially after already including a link to the Arabic text in pdf format. The same goes for the "subjects" field — such information is best treated within the article proper. @gren: I updated the ruku, ayah and sujud pages to try and clarify what these terms mean in relation to Quran recitation. @tariqabjotu: I believe "Para" comes from Urdu, and is synonymous with the more well-known Arabic term juz'. And I figured that "Harf-e-Mukatta'at" was a very bad urdu-style rendering of muqatta'at, the cryptic disjoined letters that appear at the beginning of several suras.

Anyway, let me know if everyone thinks we should go ahead and implement the new infobox or if some things still need changing/clarifying. Peace. --Muslimsson (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I question why Urdu terms are in here at all. Islam is a global religion, and there is only one language shared in common by Muslims around the world: fuṣḥá Arabic. Personally, I love the beautiful Urdu language and its literature—Ghalib, Chughtai, Qurratulain—it really is as sweet-sounding a language as they say it is. But that's beside the point for this purpose. As WP editors we are called to set aside any ethnocentrism and write for a global audience. I very much doubt that a majority of the world's Muslims can speak or understand Urdu, while as far as I can tell, in every country where Muslims live, some of them are sure to study Arabic, often for religious purposes. Therefore, for the technical terminology of Islam, if we are to use any non-English terms in an English-language article, really only fuṣḥá Arabic is admissible.

So let's replace para with juz’ and harf-e-mukatta'at with huruf muqatta‘at. The double plural *ayats is incorrect; the Arabic plural of the word is simply ayat (singular ayah). If we don't use Arabic plurals, then by all means let's use English plural forms (e.g. sajdahs instead of sajdah—some surahs have more than one). (Incidentally, I wish MOS would permit strict transliteration complete with diacritics, but that seems not to be the case, so I'm resigned to that.)

Muslimsson, I largely concur with your proposed edits to this template (except that muqattaat could use a ‘ in the third place from the end, as in the previous paragraph). Are they going to get implemented? Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing new version[edit]

As I didn't get any objections to my suggestions above, I will go ahead and implement the new version of this infobox. Muslimsson (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When? Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy[edit]

Why do we have both this and {{Infobox surah}}? Just wondering... Lithoderm 18:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I can't get the caption parameter to work... for instance, I'd like to be able to use the caption at Ar-Rum to link the Blue Qur'an and note that what is shown is Sura 30:28-32, specifically. Lithoderm 18:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]