This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for thelegal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIslam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
I just noticed this template -- it is extremely badly done. It is too long and detailed and since most of the terms are transliterated Arabic terms that would be unfamiliar to non-Muslims (and to many uneducated Muslims) it is close to useless. What the heck does the average English speaking reader make of Usul al-fiqh? An exotic Syrian delicacy involving figs?
I removed it from the mullah article, where it was longer than the article and completely unbalanced the formatting. If you want to use this template, it needs to be drastically revised.Zora09:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For people who have read up a bit on basic Islamic studies, these terms all have meanings which are obvious. Some things on Wikipedia are more technical, and Islam has a lot of technical language.DivineReality (talk)22:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ordering of the scholarly titles at the bototm of this box seems arbitrary. Not sure which is the best ordering. Probably I would recommend English alphabetical.ZaydHammoudeh02:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma, I don't think this calligraphy counts as user-generated as it is taken fromthis book. Usually, user-generated content is defined as publicly produced through platforms on the Internet and outside of professional routines and practices. The calligraphy is also used outside of Wikipedia on multiple web pages likehere. — Kaim Amin (talk)08:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the image in question
According to the file info, it was vectorized fromthis image, by you. Aren't you a user who has created this vectorization and uploaded it Commons?
But just as important as user-generated is documented usage outside of Wikipedia. Where does the calligraphy ultimately come from? Which major Islamic organizations have used it? What makes itsignificant in the topic's context perMOS:IMAGEREL?
If such use can be documented, a straightforward copy of it (without additions such as the shadow, the colours, the circle; i.e., not user-generated) might be fit for Wikipedia.☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)08:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I vectorized that calligraphy means nothing as it already existed and was produced by an actual artist. Representing Islamic topics with calligraphies has been established for a long time. As the calligraphy is under PD, the usage of this doesn't even have to be wide-spread. Its usage is already well-documented as it's being used on the cover of an actual book.
Distinctive images in a sidebar can provide useful information about the page's subject matter. Most pages using this template don't have any other images. A colourful image draws attention to a page and encourages a reader to look at it.
This calligraphy is not user-generated, it's usage outside Wikipedia is documented and it does represent the topic. This image can be used for aesthetic purposes as in any other sidebar template.Kaim Amin (talk)19:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you add the circle, the colour and the shadow or not? Please be clear, yes or no?
Those simple shapes have no effect on the calligraphy or on anything. I only added them for mere decorative purposes and to keep consistency with some otherArabic calligraphies on commons. I can simplify it more if needed.
You can't just wipe a published book out of existence, all the webpages referring to this book or the calligraphy can be archived. I already explained the reason for using this image. I don't see any other problem as long asMOS:CALLIGRAPHY doesn't require widespread use and explain the rationale for it.Kaim Amin (talk)09:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soyes, you added the shadow etc. This means it's user-generated. As for 'well-documented' or 'significant' not requiring widespread use, I kinda disagree in this case (I don't see how this image mightotherwise be significant), but I won't object in this case if it's an exact copy (without being a copyright violation).☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)10:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With this logic nothing on commons is usable on wikipedia. The question of whether anything is user-generated is only applicable to the calligraphy in this case. The fact that the book can be found on multiple websites and I can provide links for it, makes it well-documented. I'll reinstate the image if there is no other valid reason against it. Thanks.Kaim Amin (talk)11:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fact that it is user-generated clearly refers to everything added to the calligraphy. Pictures of real-world calligraphy as featured in articles likeMuhammad,Ali,Abu Bakr,Umar etc. have nothing added of this kind, and are also on Commons.
This is a clearly user-generated graphic and it also serves no encyclopedic purpose—it is merely decoration (as you mention above).Al Ameer (talk)19:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarity on the difference between "user-generated" in the context of MOS:CALLIGRAPHY and the strict definition of "user-generated content": A distinction needs to be made between what "user-generatedcontent" may mean in the context ofMOS:CALLIGRAPHY, and a strict definition ofuser-generatedcontent:
User-generated content, per the Mainspace article the MOS wikilinks to, refers broadly to any content (text, images, videos, etc.) created by non-professional individuals and uploaded to online platforms. In this sense, any image uploaded by a Wikipedia editor, regardless of its source, could technically be considered user-generated content.
In a context-specific definition inMOS:CALLIGRAPHY, "user-generatedcontent" is not simply content uploaded by a Wikipedia user but rather content created by them without prior external documentation or scholarly significance.
"User-generated" under MOS:CALLIGRAPHY is if a user personally creates Islamic calligraphy (e.g., a self-made drawing, digital artwork, or stylized text) and uploads it to Wikipedia without prior recognition or established use, it qualifies as user-generated content underMOS:CALLIGRAPHY and is not suitable for Wikipedia. That I agree with. If a user extracts,vectorizes, or enhances an existing historical manuscript, widely circulated book, or calligraphy from a respected source using software (e.g., converting it to SVG for better resolution), this does not count as "user-generated" underMOS:CALLIGRAPHY because:
The original content already has documented use outside Wikipedia.
The vectorization process is an improvement, not an original creative work.
PerCommons:Transition to SVG andHelp:SVG, SVG is the preferred format for images, making such creations and/or conversions beneficial.
"User-generated" inMOS:CALLIGRAPHY doesnotmean any content uploaded by a user but rather content created without prior recognition or documentation. If an image is faithfully derived from an authoritative source, even if improved or vectorized by an editor, it isnot"user-generated" in this context.waddie96 ★ (talk)08:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerMOS:IMAGEREL, images in an article should be pertinent to the subject and contribute to the reader’s understanding in an encyclopedic way.
In an article onIslamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), Islamic calligraphy issignificant andmeningfulif it visually represents a core concept of Fiqh, illustrates key legal doctrines, or originates from historically recognized manuscripts. (As explainedhere): For example:
A Quranic verse foundational to Islamic law or a Hadith used as a legal precedent.
A well-knownlegal maxim in calligraphy, such asالضرر يزال ("Harm must be removed") orالأمور بمقاصدها ("Matters are judged by intentions"), which illustrate legal reasoning in Fiqh.
If the calligraphy is a widely recognized representation of Fiqh—from authoritative texts, institutional use, or historical sources—it serves an encyclopedic purpose by illustrating the cultural and scholarly tradition of Islamic law. This maintains its documented usage and does not classify it as "user-generated" underMOS:CALLIGRAPHY.
Additionally, and my reason for its placement in the sidebar navigation template (such asTemplate:Fiqh for theIslamic jurisprudence article), is it enhances both navigation and encyclopedic value because:
It iswidely recognized as a symbol of Islamic jurisprudence.
It visually identifies the subject while enhancing the template without overshadowing its navigation function—similar to how flags, coats of arms, or logos are used in templates.
Thus, if the calligraphy has a well-documented historical or scholarly basis, it meets Wikipedia’s image relevance criteria and should be retained.waddie96 ★ (talk)10:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may regard what you call vectorization (in this case: the addition of a decorative circle, a colour and a shadow around the image) as an improvement, others may regard it as a deterioration, but one thing is beyond any doubt: itchanges the image so as to have a very different visual style from the original. This change wasadded by an internet user, and such changes are certainly covered by 'user-generated' as intended inMOS:CALLIGRAPHY.
Consider for example the first article I linked as OP in theoriginal discussion: at the time,Ali had a vectorized image based on an original calligraphy on display in theHagia Sophia, but now that MOS:CALLIGRAPHY is in place,Ali has an actual picture of that calligraphy itself in its Hagia Sophia setting. Nowthat is an improvement from an encyclopedic point of view. Allowing vectorization would undo that improvement entirely, since there are hundreds of such vectorized images on Commons which would be used to again replace more encyclopedically relevant images, as happenedjust recently on Ali.
I am very skeptical that the particular image under discussion here should have a well-documented historical or scholarly basis, as you say (evidence until now has included a few book covers and Islamic websites, nothing historical or scholarly), but if it does then we surely need a straightforward copy of the original image.☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)11:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so if I'm understanding you clearly, for the sake of agreeing to disagree, if the green background was removed from this debate. And we looked at only the calligraphy as black strokes on a white background, you would then accept that asnot user-generated, and sufficiently covered by sources to meetMOS:CALLIGRAPHY?
I proposewe need a better description and definition of user-generated content... linking touser-generated orWP:USERGENERATED is just too vague and leaves too much room for debate.
Secondly, I support your problem statement in that discussion actually, and even your comment later to clarify about blanking articles of images, also someone said todiscourage the use of calligraphy as the primary representation when we have images available and the need for calligraphy to be fromhistorical or architectural sources/historical coins/postage stamps.
I agree with your Haga Sophia point. I don't mean vectorize photographs of real-life objects, I mean vectorize PNG/JPEG that have calligraphy strokes only. I also agree that for example not to vectorize the title of an Islamic holy book calligraphy, but to use the image itself.waddie96 ★ (talk)00:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if an image were made only copying the calligraphy itself, for example with black strokes on a white background as you mention, I would not regard that as user-generated. Sufficiently covered by sources would be debatable, but I would not object in this case. Kind regards,☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)08:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I started the discussion there I was thinking we could put this one on hold for some time, but perhaps that wasn't the brightest idea. I'm sorry for all of the confusion that caused. In any case I think that it's best to leave to current image there for now. If someone would like to make a black-on-white (or even better, black-on-transparent) version of it though, I would greatly appreciate that. Thanks,☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)18:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that this doesn't just count as plagiarism? If this artwork was created for this book, and it's being replicated here without permission, that's surely infringing on the rights of the original designer or artwork holder. Has anyone emailed the publisher for permission to replicate their cover art?Iskandar323 (talk)19:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The book was printed in the US where calligraphies are not copyrightable and that calligraphy in my opinion does not pass theCommons:Threshold of originality in so far ascoming from someone as the originator/author" (insofar as it somehow reflects the author's personality), rather than "never having occurred or existed before.waddie96 ★ (talk)20:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Were it a mere horizontally scripted line of calligraphic text, I would agree. However, when a phrase is converted into a calligraphic monogram, it takes on much more of a semblance of a piece of crafted art or design.Iskandar323 (talk)20:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fine, I'm not enough of a US copyright legal expert to interpret that directly, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Speaking personally, one thing I find objectionable about the way this has been rendered is the over use of additional ornamentation. I would actually prefer it if it was black and white (or a close enough monochrome) like in the original work. I don't see the need or the use for the double ring around the monograph, definitely no use for the frilly edge around it, and no particular reason why it needs a green background. These are modifications from the original that serve no purpose. It's a style I've seen frequently for this type of digital rendering, and it's clearly purely aesthetic, which is why we don't need it. The original work didn't use this ornamentation, and we don't need it either. It makes it seem less encyclopedic. The original form is actually more clean, clear and direct.Iskandar323 (talk)03:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323, @Apaugasma, @Waddie96, If there's any confusion about copyright this is not the place to talk about it. I think a DR should be started on commons for documentation purposes and to get experts' insight.
@Apaugasma,Waddie96, andIskandar323: Hey, sorry to ping after a long time. I thinkMOS:ISLAM shouldn't really apply here. This calligraphy is not an honorific because this image doesn't or can't actually ‘honor’ the subject, Usul Al-fiqh. It is intended to improve navigation and aesthetics, as most pages with this template don't have any other images. A colorful image does it a lot better than a mere b&w, same asRights orAncient Greek religion. If you agree, this discussion can be closed for good.Kaim (talk)20:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Islamic contexts calligraphy always carries an honorific connotation. That's why it would be better from an encyclopedic point of view to have something actually used in notable Islamic contexts. That would be ideal. But I think the current image is fine. This discussion can be closed if you want. Kind regards,☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)07:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Apaugasma that any added image should add encyclopaedic value
I've come to realise through this discussion six months ago that aesthetics and visual appeal donot have encyclopaedic value; or at least not in the Wikipedia context. And that's not necessarily by policy/guideline, but simply by status quo.
I think the Usul al-Fiqh image can stay put as an exception, since our discussion came to no consensus. However, at the time the discussion ended, I was and still am of the opinion that the Usul al-Fiqh image should be removed.
Also, something to improve aesthetics surely is honorific in nature to the subject, since if it were factual the equivalent would arguably simply be the title written in Arabic script in plain text.waddie96 ★ (talk)15:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also been editing in the MOS:ISLAM space much longer now, and I've realised that user-generated calligraphy actually adds a loss of appeal. Since it adds no encyclopaedic value, and looks 'homemade' compared to say an image of a manuscript.waddie96 ★ (talk)15:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to reopen this discussion, but I'd simply only state that my viewpoint has changed to err more on the conservative side (in line actually to what most of @Apaugasma argued) on what should be added and what should be removed.waddie96 ★ (talk)15:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Waddie96, I appreciate you reasoning. I’m also wondering if you think the idea behind using images in an article’s infobox is any different from using them in a sidebar template.Kaim (talk)15:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, we should be even more conservative about placing user-generated calligraphy images in infoboxes as compared to sidebar navigation templates. But I guess an infobox is a sidebar template in and of itself.waddie96 ★ (talk)19:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma:this revert of the addition of the calligraphyFile:UsulALFiqh.svg into the template warrants further exploration but is not consistent with the current practice which provide a necessary precedent. Like inTemplate:Islam and more notablyTemplate:Fiqh andTemplate:Hadith, etc. (found atCategory:Islam sidebar templates), calligraphy is used.MOS:ISLAM as you've referred to, refers toediting Islam-related articles ... to make articles easy to read by following a consistent format, not how templates should necessarily appear.Islamic honorifics, as referred to in your quotedMOS:CALLIGRAPHY, statesshould generally be omitted from articles (whether Arabic or English), except where they are part of quotations or images.. Hence, this is in an image in a template and not within the body text of the article. The calligraphy is notuser-generated, but well-documented with use outside Wikipedia:1,2,3,4.waddie96 ★ (talk)07:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant bit inMOS:ISLAM isMOS:CALLIGRAPHY:Images containing Islamic honorifics or calligraphy should have a well-documented usage outside of Wikipedia and not be user-generated.
Whether such an image appears in a template or in an article is of no consequence. This image, with its user-generated addition of a colour, a circle and a shadow, is clearly different from the images you link to. The images in some of the templates you link to are also user-generated; I will remove them shortly.
Discussion about this particular image is taking place in the section above (#File:UsulALFiqh.svg), where I've already indicated that I would not object to a straightforward copy of the image as used outside of Wikipedia. Please discuss there. Thanks,☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)11:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve restored this due to the discussion atMOS:ISLAM. This image does not appear unacceptably user generated per Wikipedia policies, and if it may be the consensus to remove it from the template isn’t there yet.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ15:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to§ File:UsulALFiqh.svg
