Talk:Marrakesh

Spelling
Can somebody please tell me the Wikipedia stance on British/American spellings? The latest edit here has changed Neighbourhoods to Neighborhoods. Not wanting to be petty, I haven't changed it back. 03/09/2006, Tomkeene


 * If the subject of the article has a natural affinity to one variety or the other, use that one. (ie write about an American citizen or city or battleship etc in American English). Otherwise, stick to the variety used by the first major contributor. Often, though I try to replace the word with a spelling-neutral one like district or quarter. R OGER   TALK 08:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Economy
Marrakech seems to have hosted a number of international meetings. Any particular reason? It would also be nice to have general information about the local economy. -- Beland (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Founding?
Was the city founded in 1062 or 1070? Hexmaster (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Coming to this many years later but I just noticed that the article says the city was founded in 1062, however the more commonly cited date is 1070. Historical sources apparently cite a variety of dates across a few decades, but Deverdun's volume on the city's history concludes that 1070 is the more convincing date and many authors seem to endorse that conclusion. Still, both dates occur in sources so might as well mention both. Robert Prazeres (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

History
The end of the history section just fizzles out and reads like an advertisement. Topics that need to be covered include World War II and Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.244.146 (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

English spelling
I moved the article to "Marrakesh". Marrakech is the French spelling although it's used in English too, but the proper English spelling is "Marrakesh" which was used already in the body of article as many as 29 times prior to the move. "Marrakesh" not only better reflects the transliteration from broth both Arabic (مراكش‎) and Tashelhit language, but is also used commonly in English. Khestwol (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Marrakesh" is also used in other Wikipedia articles, like Marrakesh-Tensift-El Haouz. Khestwol (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the correct spelling is based on Berber which is with a c. 787,000 for Marrakech 295,000 for Marrakesh. I'm moving it back. I intend developing this article shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Marrakech is not based on Berber. The city is spelled Marrakec in the Berber Latin alphabet with a C at the end (not Marrakech). The Berber pronunciation is Marrakesh because its alphabet uses C for ش (IPA: ʃ). The Arabic name has ش /sh/ at the end too. The English spelling "Marrakesh" is correct and is commonly used in English besides the French spelling. Khestwol (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes but the real way to decide it is what is most commonly used in reliable sources and its 787,000 for Marrakech vs 295,000 for Marrakesh. I've had similar dilemnas over spelling and always decide it by most hits in google books. Per you could ask User:Al ameer son for input? Anyway I'll dig out my book shortly and begin and expansion. I aim to get this up to GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an issue on the difference between the English and French spellings of Arabic proper names. For Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian and Lebanese-related articles, there seems to be a tendency to use ch in lieu of sh i.e. Cheikh > Sheikh. Personally, I prefer using the English spellings for all articles since this English Wikipedia, but the sources typically trump preference, unless otherwise specified by MoS-Arabic. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Having already done much research in preparing this article I think Marrakech is far more commonly used than Marrakesh, even in English publications. Books by the most reputable sources for travel and indeed websites on the city on places such as "the largest club in Africa" spell it Marrakech. There is a case to be made for spelling it Marrakesh, but i think the decision should be based upon the majority of reliable sources and how they spell it; 3 times as many spell it Marrakech.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hm. That's not a proper g-books search. Most of those numbers are "ghost-hits" (non-existent).  And you're not even restricting to English language sources.  A quick check (removing both Wikipedia llc, English-only restrictions, placing the cut-off at 1980 and trying to wash out g-hits) shows they're both roughly equal - that is 91 pages-worth of references vs. 100 pages-worth.  And the latter still includes a lot of French books and French references I couldn't weed out.  So it is not "far more commonly used". It's pretty much a toss up. Personally, I have a preference for "Marrakesh", not only for being the English spelling, commonly recognizable and commonly used, but also for yielding a more correct pronunciation in English ("Marrakech" in English will likely end up embarassingly pronounced "Marraketch" by many of the innocent children who will come here.)   Heck, even the official Morocco tourism website lists it as "Marrakesh" in English.
 * Also, I have lot more observations and notes on the history section of this article, which I plan to substantially change. But I will post those later. Walrasiad (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is not completed yet but if you want to constructively help build it you are welcome so long as you referenced using sfb notes as I've been doing. I intend to take this to GA at some point. Also needs to mention recent events including the 2011 trouble. Actually Marrakesh spelling by page hits only averages about 300 hits a day, Marrakech gets 2200 odd.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you by hits per day, but I expect a lot of your hits are from French & other sources. But take a closer examination. Just going by the English references already contained in the article, most of the general-interest references you cite use "Marrakesh" - e.g. Bosworth (2010), Clammer (2009), Denby (2004), Gerteiny (1967), Gottreich (2007), Layton (2011), Nanjira (2010), Naylor (2009),  Shillington (2005).

Marrakech tends to be only used in specialist books which nativize (i.e. Frenchify) all location spellings (e.g. "Fès" instead of "Fez"), like Davis (2009), Delbecki & co. (2011), Hamilton (2011), Harrison (2012), Hoisington (2004), Pons (2010) and Venison (2005)

(Rogerson uses both - esh in 2000, and ech in 2004)

Of the travel guides it is divided: Fodor's (2007), Lonely Planet (Hardy 2005, Mahyew/Dodd, 2004, Bing 2006/11), and Rough Guide (Jacobs, 2010) use Marrakesh, while Frommer's (Christiani, 2010, Humphrys (several)), Maverick (Searight 1999) and Hedonist (Sullivan) use Marrakech but the latter also nativize everything (again, Fès instead of Fez, etc.)

(the "further reading" sources you cite I can't verify for degree of nativization, but just from the titles, the selection seems pretty balanced (also some sources repeated, this should be pared)).

More importantly, major news outlets (e.g. BBC,, New York Times ), even UNESCO  and the Moroccan government (e.g. on official tourism site ["Marrakesh]), which you'd expect to nativize, actually use "Marrakesh" in their English text.

Granted it is not always consistent. But you'll hardly ever see the "Marrakech" spelling paired together with English names like "Fez", but only with French/nativist "Fès".

In SUM: it's pretty clear Marrakesh is the English spelling, Marrakech is the French spelling. And those who use English spelling generally use Marrakesh, while those who use French/nativist spelling generally go for Marrakech.

Given this is a general interest English encyclopedia, for the general public rather than specialists, with a preference for common usage rather than specialized usage, the default should be the common English spelling: "Marrakesh". If even Cote d'Ivoire is (perplexingly, IMO) is forced to be Ivory Coast here, I don't see why Marrakesh article shouldn't use the English spelling. (And it has the further advantage (as I already noted) of yielding the correct pronounciation for English-speakers, and not letting the children reading -ech slip into "Marraketch" or "Marrakek".) Walrasiad (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The Collins world map in front of me, Marrakech. My National Geographic atlas which always tries to choose the "most correct" spelling for places spells it Marrakech. The most reputable books on Marrakech and local institutions spell it Marrakech. Where possible we should use the name most popular locally/nationally. Fès instead of Fez seems more appropriate too. A Pronounciation Marrak-esh can be added to the intro, hardly an argument.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about "most correct". It is about "most common"/"least surprise".  Maps are a poor guide, since many nativize wholesale.  I got a supposedly English atlas with Munchen and Moskva instead of Munich and Moscow.  Most general English-speakers wouldn't recognize Fès at all. Walrasiad (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * " It is about "most common"/"least surprise". True, more sources spell it Marrakech than Marrakesh, fact.
 * "Maps are a poor guide". Actually, no, they usually try to be politically correct and as accurate as possible. National Geographic is a fantastic resource for geography and maps, and Collins is one of the world's most reputable institutions on language and spelling and they spell it Marrakech.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see with my own eyes that national Geographic has Munchen and Moskva, Torino and Wien in their Atlas. That's not most common usage. I can also see with my own eyes that the searchable map they use on their main map page has "Fez" and Marrakesh".  Try another angle. Walrasiad (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You have an answer for everything don't you? Feel free to open an RFC or village pump post about what we should name the article. I'm convinced Marrakech is more popular than Marrakesh, Highbeam research (English language newspapers mainly) also confirms it 5000 odd for Marrakesh 8150 for Marrakech   ♦  Dr. Blofeld  16:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yet ngram says it ain't. Again, I'm not seeing dominance you're claiming in number runs, but pretty much a toss-up, as mentioned before. As a result, I think reasonable expectations should play a larger role in consideration. A big marker to me is that I simply don't find Marrakech-Fez pairings, but only Marrakesh-Fez or Marrakech-Fès, which indicates to me that Marrakech is used only in English texts which take the extra effort to nativize all spellings. It is not a huge surprise - the visual difference between Marrakech & Marrakesh is slight and can be glazed over. But the difference between Fez and Fès is huge and the latter would surprise and befuddle most general readers. Given that no Marrakesh/Marrakech spelling dominates it seems to me the pairing issue should be given higher priority, as many Morocco-related articles here naturally contain both cities, and to introduce an inconsistency in spelling that is not found in any text (i.e. no Marrakech-Fez pairings), we'd be introducing a new anomaly. As Marrakesh is English spelling, correct pronunciation, preponderant in general rather than specialist/nativist texts and common enough (even if not overtly dominant), there is little lost and much gained by it. But if you still believe you see some Marrakechi dominance somewhere I don't see, perhaps more eyes should be brought to bear. An RM and/or RFC should indeed be introduced to decide on both articles simultaneously (Marrakesh-Fez), not merely one individually. But it will likely delay approval of the DYK nom. If you don't mind the delay, that can be done. Walrasiad (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

We could always move it to Marrakesh (Marrakech)...♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's probably the unhappiest of solutions. I'd be more interested in hearing your positive arguments for Marrakech (outside the number runs, which I hope you agree are inconclusive). That is, what advantages are gained by it. Walrasiad (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not but the issue does not concern me as much as you think. I'm only going by my gut instinct having already a lot of research for this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dr. B asked my opinion, though I can not imagine why he thinks I'm an authority. FWIW, which is very little, the spelling I recognize is Marrakech. English spelling is notoriously not phonetic both for English names and for names in other languages, so proper phonetic transliteration has nothing to do with it. IMO, the best guide to current English spelling is the usage of major newspapers. The NYT & London Times use Marrakesh. The WSJ uses Marrakech. Official sources are also useful. The US Dept. of State uses both, but Marrakech twice as often. This leaves it completely ambiguous. At least, unlike many naming disputes, this one has no political connotations.  DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a greater majority of hits for Marrakech in both google book and English language sources in High Beam as well as US Dept of State using Marrakech twice as often. Add to this that most specialist books on it spell it Marrakech and local institutions and Moroccan government seem to recognize it as Marrakech there is a reason why I'm leaning towards Marrakech and I think that justifies this spelling.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

We should trust Google Books Ngram Viewer which shows "Marrakesh" is used more commonly in English books. Khestwol (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For me its a question of practical experience and convenience in usage. Wikipedia is for general readers, not specialists, and general not specialist books are the guide to nomenclature. Someone who picks up a dedicated book on Morocco isn't surprised when nativist spellings are thrown at him - he is mentally prepared for it, indeed, he expects it.  But a general reader isn't.  That is, someone who is researching another topic and picks up a book on, say, the general history of Africa, or Portuguese imperialism, or the Italian gold trade, or Medieval art, or Islamic legal schools, or Jewish migration, or textile weaves, or a children's atlas, is not expecting it and will be "surprised" by nativist spellings.  It is exactly for such general readers that Wikipedia is designed.  And it is for this reason the Moroccan government uses "Marrakesh" on its tourist sites.  I write a lot of historical articles, many of which touch on Moroccan history, where surprise spellings can startle and arrest the smoothness of the prose, particularly for a general reader. Marrakesh/Marrakech isn't the worst of them - eyes can glaze over. But Fès/Fez is impossible. Common recognizable phrases like the Maghrawa Kingdom of Fez, the Marinid palace of Fez, the Malikite scholars of Fez, the Ghana-Fez gold route, etc. become unrecognizable and startling when forced into "Fès".
 * It is without doubt that Marrakesh is English spelling, and Marrakech is French spelling (as Bosworth notes). The question is whether the French spelling has dominantly displaced the English in common usage in general works.  And I don't see that. I see it displaced only in specialist works, or works which go the extra effort to nativize everything - which is why Marrakech-Fez pairings aren't found, only Marrakech-Fès or Marrakesh-Fez. In my experience, the Marrakesh-Fez pairing is the most common found in general works, simplest, natural and straightforward which won't cause head-scratching and wonder by general audiences.  It is more likely to be used in other Wiki articles and more likely to stay stable - that is, you're likelier to get people changing from "Marrakech" to "Marrakesh" thinking the spelling is a non-English mistake than people changing "Marrakesh" to "Marrakech". Not only here, but particularly when used in other articles. Walrasiad (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually page views show by far more editors search for Marrakech than Marrakesh..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Just in case there anyone failed to follow my note in Dr. Blofeld's talk page upon creation of History of Marrakesh", let me replicate it here:


 * OK. But I object to the title. It really has to be "Marrakesh", not "Marrakech".  I don't know if you saw my citations in the original article to numerous books clearly and explicitly noting that "Marrakesh" is indeed the common English spelling. To replicate: Cenival (in Bosworth, 1989: p.588), Cornell (1997: p.xv), Pennel (2000: p.xxxiv), Gottereich (2007: p.xv), Hoffman and Miller (2010: p.xi), Schroeter (2002: p.xix-xx). The French version may be the preference of some authors (and if they're serious authors, they'll note they're making a francophone deviation from the common English spelling, e.g. ).  But "Marrakesh' is clearly the common English spelling, and the one used in generalist works not narrowly dedicated to Morocco alone. I write a lot of North African-history related articles here, and that is what I've seen, what I've used and what I plan to stick with. So, if you don't object, I'm going to move that to "History of Marrakesh" for now.  We can RM a longer-term resolution later. Walrasiad (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

To summarize: while usage my be mixed in google searches, reliable references explicitly identify "Marrakesh" as the common English spelling. Final decision can be put up to RM, but a decision had to be made in extracting the "History of Marrakesh" article. Walrasiad (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

History spinoff?
OK, so I just revamped the history section. It tapers off horribly at the end - the 20th C. city certainly needs more work. But I've pooped myself out for the moment and need a break. I still have to paste in the refs, but besides being momentarily tired, before I do so, I'd like to canvass opinion whether this section should be spinned off into its own article. Looking at it now, it's kinda large for a city article, and I wonder if it should perhaps be moved to a "History of Marrakesh" article? I am not sure how much to retain here - perhaps reverting back to the older smaller history, or taking a new summary from this one? Or just leave it as it is for now? (+ refs). Walrasiad (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. History section should move into its own article. The history section in this article should be summarized based on what we currently have rather than reverting back to what was. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I'll condense it shortly, splitting done, tremendous work Walras.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Etymology
The article says "The probable origin of the name is from the Berber (Amazigh) words mur (n) akush . . . which means "Land of God". The word mur is used now in Berber mostly in the feminine form tamurt." But of the two words, mur and akush, which means 'land' and which means 'God'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguistatlunch (talk • contribs) 11:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of Marrakesh
What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marrakesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/678NyvGs8?url=http://www.lavieeco.com/documents_officiels/Recensement%20population.pdf to http://www.lavieeco.com/documents_officiels/Recensement%20population.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103092931/http://www.uca-en.ucam.ac.ma/the-university/rub-18.php to http://www.uca-en.ucam.ac.ma/the-university/rub-18.php
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20131004135322/http://www.cncd.fr/frontoffice/bdd-region.asp?action=getRegion&id=3 to http://www.cncd.fr/frontoffice/bdd-region.asp?action=getRegion&id=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marrakesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130905175633/http://hg2marrakech.com/sights/museum/---sights-sightseeing-culture-things-to-do-things-to-see-gueliz-marrakech---marrakech-morocco to http://hg2marrakech.com/sights/museum/---sights-sightseeing-culture-things-to-do-things-to-see-gueliz-marrakech---marrakech-morocco
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605072244/http://www.marrakechbiennale.com/history/ to http://www.marrakechbiennale.com/history/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Another article for Medina of Marrakesh
There is a need for creating another article about the Medina of Marrakesh which is now a world heritage site. It is strange that there is such an article in other languages and not in English wikipedia. 17:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdeaitali (talk • contribs)

Condense/summarize "landmarks" sections?
The "landmarks" and "museums" sections are virtually duplicated at the Landmarks of Marrakesh page, which partly undermines the usefulness of that second page since most of the content is already here. This creates at least a partial content fork (WP:CONTENTFORK), which among other consequences makes it harder to keep information consistent across several pages, because any fixes or improvements needed on one page may need to be applied to the other page(s) too -- while nonetheless sorting through minor differences (as I recently had to do to fix some mistakes about the Royal Palace). Since this is a general page about the city and since these sections take up quite a bit of space here, I'd like to suggest that they be condensed to short summaries. For example, I'd recommend condensing the "Mosques" section to just one or two paragraphs which link to the relevant main pages, instead of having multiple subsections about individual monuments. The same can be done for "Palaces and riads", "Tombs", and "Museums". Future details can be added to Landmarks of Marrakesh instead, or to the relevant main pages of individual monuments, etc. Since this would be a significant change, I wanted to see if other editors agree with this? R Prazeres (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea. This article is currently a bit long (~64kb readable prose size), so it would benefit from some condensing. WeirdMatter (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I finally have time to come back to this so I'll start doing some of that now. R Prazeres (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2022

 * 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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Garnarblarnar (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Marrakesh → Marrakech – Marrakech gives 248 million search results on google whilst Marrakesh gives just 21.6 million. The common name seems to be Marrakech, what do you think? Jishiboka1 (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Inclined to oppose per Google Ngrams, which seems to indicate that Marrakesh has almost always been more common, including now. Dekimasu よ! 03:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The more standard spelling in English today is "Marrakesh", which also, for that matter, makes the pronunciation more transparent for English readers. This spelling is common in all English reliable sources I've consulted and even in travel guides. A simple Google Books search won't be useful in comparing the number of results, since it doesn't distinguish between French and English publications (there are a lot of French sources), but what it does show is that searching for "Marrakech" immediately yields mostly French books. Google search on its own is not a good indicator of much. R Prazeres (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose; Marrakesh is the WP:COMMONNAME, per ngrams. BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME based on Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Surprised to support, actually. Ngrams are actually essentially tied! So in a tiebreaker scenario I'm absolutely fine resorting to the official name in English, which absolutely has a C. I'm as surprised as anyone, since the S version is what first comes to mind, but there we are. Red   Slash  19:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the underlying reason, but depending on the preposition you include you get varying results, e.g. compare "from (...)" and "to (...)", which favour the S form to varying degrees. Unless there's more to consider, they just seem like statistical fluctuations of big data. I don't see an obvious reason to rely on these versus the bare-noun ngram provided by Dekimasu above. R Prazeres (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Marrakesh" is the common English language spelling, "Marrakech" is the French spelling. Already provided evidence above when this was brought up previously. Walrasiad (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. See above. Red   Slash  22:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. "Marrakesh" is the English spelling, "Marrakech" is the French spelling (as explained e.g. here). It is true some English sources choose to use French spelling, but those same sources also tend to Frenchify/nativize all locational spellings, e.g. sources which spell "Marrakech" instead of "Marrakesh" will also spell "Fès" instead of "Fez". So you will either find Marrakesh-Fez pairings or Marrakech-Fès pairings, but you won't likely find Marrakech-Fez pairings.  As for ngrams being tied, well, I reported that ten years ago (oh dear, it's been that long?) Walrasiad (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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.
 * Oppose WP:SNOWBALL إيان (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 19:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We had this debate about Fez/Fes regarding the Anglophone and Francophone spellings some time ago. As an ex resident of Maroc, I and all the anglophone people out there use the francophone spellings. Wikipedia does not. I doubt it ever will. (It should though) -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 14:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Amazigh names need double-checking
There's been an IP user going around deleting the Amazigh/Berber names in Moroccan city articles, including this one. The edit summaries often say "unsourced", but given that the Arabic names are not sourced either this looks like simply a POV push, along with other unexplained changes, and I'm reverting the edits. Present-day native names are not something that, in my opinion, and judging by many other articles, strictly require a source. They're generally easy to verify. As the Amazigh languages are both native and official languages in Morocco, we shouldn't be deleting those names frivolously.

That said, however, Amazigh names are hard to verify for those of us who don't speak any Amazigh language and don't write Tifinagh, and there are multiple Moroccan city articles whose English and French versions provide different renditions of the Amazigh name, including Marrakesh (this article gives ⴰⵎⵓⵔⴰⴽⵓⵛ while the French article gives ⵎⵕⵕⴰⴽⵛ; compare also the English and French versions of Rabat, Salé, Meknes, etc). There are multiple Amazigh languages/dialects in Morocco, but it would be ideal to know which spelling is used officially, or at least make sure that the given spelling is accurate for the most relevant local dialect.

So in short: are there any editors literate in Tifinagh who could assist in checking these names? Or is there an independent source (e.g. government website) that we can consult for the official or reliable rendition of the names?

This request is relevant to other articles, but I figured I would start here first since this article gets the most visitors. R Prazeres (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seal of Marrakesh.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Marrakech map.png

Natural Disaster
Please include details of the recent earthquake in Marakesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Climate
I would argue it’s important to write “very hot summers” because Marrakech summers are unbearably hot, tourists cannot visit Marrakesh during summer, every day is around 48° with a scorching hot desert sun. דולב חולב (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. I have no strong feelings about this minor wording issue, it just sounded more like a personal description rather than an encyclopedic one. I assumed the existing description is following the tone and terminology of the classification, "Hot semi-arid", with "hot" being used in a general sense. But that being said, I just looked quickly at various other GA city articles and I see variation in wording either way, so feel free to disregard my revert.
 * For what it's worth, though: tourists do visit Marrakesh in the summer and 48 degrees is far from the average! R Prazeres (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * you can look at a year July 2023 Marrakech weather. Everyday is around 43 and tourist doesn’t visit in those months. דולב חולב (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox montage
@Snowstormfigorion: you haven't provided any good reason for changing the infobox montage. The old montage is of lower resolution and is less useful, given that it's a single image with no option of modifying the selection or layout. This type of montage is mostly absent from high-quality (GA or FA) city articles (e.g. Paris, London, Hamilton, Ontario), and increasingly from other major city articles as well (e.g. Cairo, Istanbul, Beijing).

Feel free to discuss, but don't edit-war over this kind of thing again. R Prazeres (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The montage being a single image is really not a factor to be considered as it's used by one of the featured articles you list as an example. The collage was changed in October without consensus; per WP:WEAKSILENCE, consensus arising from silence evaporates when an editor changes existing content or objects to it. Moreover, there is no deadline for this. I don't want to edit war over this or with you especially, but kindly be considerate of the former. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how editing by consensus works. Use your common sense; by your logic, the vast majority of constructive edits anywhere at any point in the article's history are "without consensus", because the majority of such edits do not get discussed explicitly. That does not make it sensible to arbitrarily revert months-old or years-old constructive edits with no other motivation, and then edit-warring over it. The infobox format has been stable for months, has been further edited since this change, and is in line with the format of montages elsewhwere. If you want to change the infobox again, WP:BRD applies.
 * You're right, I didn't check the Hamilton, Ontario infobox more carefully, which uses a single image. Regardless of that, there are clear advantages to a multi-image montage and that's the trend I've seen being implemented in many city articles. Every other example above (including GAs) follows that format, so there's clearly nothing wrong with it. You still haven't indicated why you prefer the old image. R Prazeres (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And I see you chose to continue edit-warring, despite what was said above. I'm still waiting to hear a single proper argument for your preference. 18:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Edits like those you mentioned do have presumed consensus but as per WP:WEAKSILENCE, this is no longer the case when they are changed or challenged; I'm really sorry this is coming off as edit-warring. Besides the above, the image is more comprehensive in that it contains almost all of Marrakesh's best-known landmarks and as such is more representative of it. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:SILENCE also explains how edits without discussion gain consensus, which you are ignoring. Among other notes: "You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others." This has already happened here, as I've noted above. And it's not "coming off" as edit-warring, it is edit-warring. So please revert your last edit and solicit a consensus on this talk page instead, as you should have done from the start.
 * As for your argument that the image is "more comprehensive" can be addressed by simply adding new images to the existing montage, rather than reverting to a single, lower-resolution image that can't be changed.
 * Needless to say, in any case, I invite other editors to give their input on their preferrence for the infobox image(s). R Prazeres (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The collage was in use in the infobox for more than a decade before it was changed; being a single image is not that much of an issue and the resolution is sufficient. Furthermore WP:SILENCE prominently states you can no longer assume consensus exists because you have seen evidence of disagreement. Nevertheless, I've self-reverted to avoid any edit-warring. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your self-revert. For the future: in my understanding, you're invoking WP:SILENCE in a very unusual way that sidesteps both the spirit of the wider WP:CONSENSUS policy and other policies (including, for edit-warring specifically, WP:STATUSQUO).
 * But back to content: There's still no good reason to have one image of relatively low resolution instead of images of higher resolution that readers can better examine as they like. There is also over a decade's worth of newer images that have been uploaded to Wiki Commons since 2012. The current template (photo montage, but multi-image is also available) allows editors to update the selection accordingly, as is common.
 * Given that your argument for the single-image collage is about more landmarks, why don't you simply add more images to the current montage? Or even just say which landmarks/cityscapes you think are most beneficial to include? Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I reverted for now to avoid edit-warring and per WP:QUO. Also, bear in mind that WP:SILENCE, or presumed consensus, was your argument when revering my edit, although you instead cited WP:CONSENSUS; mine has been that it also states that consensus can no longer be presumed once there is disagreement.


 * I still believe that things such as the montage being a single image and the date of when the photos were take are non-issues, and that as it have stood in the article for so long (and that there's disagreement regarding its change), a consensus is warranted. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And just to be clear, weaponizing one part of a policy against other policies and against standard Wikipedia practice is not common sense, and at no point whatsoever does it justify edit-warring. Don't do it again, that is all. R Prazeres (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This might've been the case in regard to WP:QUO, yes, but that's all. As for the rest, adhering to that portion of the policy you cited is not "weaponizing" it against common sense nor other policies. Thanks for summarizing everything; in the meantime, as per the above, the former montage should be reinserted until a consensus is established. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Snowstormfigorion Why did you edit-war... yet again ? In violation of WP:STATUSQUO, after multiple warnings, and after apparently agreeing above to stop ? At this point, I am considering reporting you to WP:AN/EW or WP:ANI.
 * You could also explain why you haven't responded to the obvious solution I pointed out to your only argument above: add more images instead. R Prazeres (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I restored the former montage as again, there is no consensus for changing it. This in itself shouldn't be against status quo, but nonetheless if you see it that way, feel free to change it back. Regarding the latter, I don't see that any solution is necessary as like I said the montage being a single image and the date of the photos are non-issues. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, this is your own idiosynratic interpretation of policy, stop using it to justify edit-warring. Please revert the edit yourself, if you are interested in showing that it's not your intention to edit-war.
 * If you're impatient to settle the question, I suggest you consider Third opinion. In the meantime, I've also gone ahead and posted a notice at WikiProject Morocco, to invite more editors to the question below. R Prazeres (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as the case, or that WP:SILENCE was interpreted other than the way it was supposed to; not just in this article, but in those of other Moroccan cities as well. At the same time, I won't edit war with you if you change back the montage. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I missed this message earlier. Fine, if you commit to stop edit-warring (I'll hold you to that), I'll restore the pre-edit-war version of the infobox. If you still don't like it, solicit consensus. I've already gone out of my way to invite comments from others; there are still more options available to you if you want more community input. R Prazeres (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The thing is, there is no consensus for the montage you keep reinserting; the former montage stood on the article's infobox for most of the entirety of its existence, and was only abruptly changed a few months back with no prior consensus.


 * Now that's fine and all, per WP:BOLD and WP:SILENCE/PRESUMEDCONSENSUS; but, as stated above, the latter explicitly affirms "Consensus arising from silence evaporates when an editor changes existing content or objects to it" and "You can no longer assume consensus exists because you have seen evidence of disagreement". I have absolutely no problem with establishing a consensus for a new montage, yet like WP:QUO, SILENCE is a policy, and you're ignoring it. Thus, for the time being and until a consensus for a different montage is reached, the former, long-standing montage should be restored. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you deliberately going in circles here? If you think I'm violating policy, then report this to WP:ANI. But stop wasting my time by edit-warring, post-hoc justifying your edit war, promising to stop edit-warring, and then edit-warring all over again. R Prazeres (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not; and I'm not edit warring with you, but please restore the montage for now and until a consensus is reached as per the above. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Question for all editors
Restating the general content question here for other editors: what preferences do you have for the image(s) in the infobox? A single-image montage ? A multiple-image template (e.g. in this version)? Or something else? See discussion above for context if needed, but any suggestions are welcome regardless. R Prazeres (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I personally like the multiple-image template for the sake of convenience (cities change over time!!) and general aesthetic. Having lived in the city for a decent amount, I think that it does a better job representing the city than Marrakech montage2.png on Commons. NAADAAN (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)