Talk:Melilla

Outdated article

There was a fairly [updated version] that was deleted, where all the city's data appeared in detail and written in a neutral tone. Why was it reverted to this stub? Is it possible for someone to recover or rewrite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VLG51 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICT & WP:UE

We must have the actual romanizations of foreign text like Arabic. We do not need every variant IPA transcription in the lead sentence, especially when it runs to fill an entire line. It's questionable that /ə/ needs a separate version, since it's just informal/unstressed handling of the short /ɛ/ sound, and there's already a (mishandled) #Name section. That's where a laundry list of IPA forms should be dumped if we're even including them instead of (more correctly/helpfully) providing links to the Wiktionary entries. — LlywelynII 16:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and the unsourced "Spanish pronunciation" is/was wrong per the Wiktionary entry and our article on the Spanish double L. The editor who added it provided a historic pronunciation, but not a local or standard one. Ditto the mistranscription of the Punic characters on the coinage, presumably owing to Lara Peinado. Ditto misattributing the Latin to Ptolemy and Pliny instead of just Pliny. &c. &c. &c. — LlywelynII 17:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant information in the header

Given the insistence of a user — @Asqueladd— on maintaining irrelevant, arbitrary, and biased information about the city of Melilla, I feel compelled to bring the debate here.

The phrase, "Melilla features a diglossia between the official Spanish and Tarifit", besides being fake, is undoubtedly irrelevant and has no place at the top of the article.

Attempting to discuss "Greater Morocco" in an article about a Spanish city undermines neutrality and promotes the perspective of a country other than Spain regarding a Spanish city. And, in any case, this is not the appropriate place to include that information.

The city of Melilla is not in Morocco, it has never been in Morocco, it is not a special territory but an autonomous city of Spain. Enough with the propaganda. Lopezsuarez (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the body and the lead is actually a perfectly appropiate place to tackle summarised aspects of the body. The body covers both ideas (they are perhaps the central features of two subsections: Melilla#Language and Melilla#Dispute_with_Morocco) Melilla features a diglossia between the official Spanish and Tarifit [...] besides being fake, is undoubtedly irrelevant Why is it "fake" and "undoubtely irrelevant"? The Muslim population speaks Tarifit and Spanish and the sociolinguistics are that of a diglossic coexistence. The city of Melilla is not in Morocco it has never been in Morocco I don't think the article claims it is part of Morocco in Wiki voice. That is a strawman fallacy. Moroccan irredentist claims can be tackled nonetheless if they are important (they are). Morocco is not a micky mouse country in the other side of the world but the neighbouring polity. it is not a special territory but an autonomous city of Spain That is what the article states. The article did not claim otherwise. I don't detect inline Moroccan propaganda, certainly not on the elements you are keen to remove and your claims do not match the content of the article.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we should also restore the other_name value of "Mřič" which was deleted by Lopezsuarez from the infobox back on 9 November. ～ Misha Vargas (talk | contribs) 17:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Misha Vargas: The specific Tarifit placename may require solid sourcing, although I don't know if the current lack of adequate sourcing is the reason for Lopezsuarez's deletion (or if they were rather making a case for some kind of purported "Moroccan propaganda" there too). I recall having searched for secondary sources in the past with limited success.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m not seeing anything fake, biased or indicative of “propaganda” in the lead. It seems perfectly reasonable to reference Morocco’s claims, just as Spanish claims to Gibraltar are referenced in that article’s lead. I do have a concern regarding the use of the term diglossia, but that is more to do with it being a specialist term that will likely be unfamiliar to the majority of readers. I appreciate there is a Bluelink, but I wonder if it would be possible to unpack it a bit. KJP1 (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Removal of Amazigh name

„ because morocco uses this as an excusa to occupy land just as it does in WS“ im sorry but has this to do with the fact that Melilla is also a Riffian city? Also Melilla is claimed by both Morocco and Spain. Why should Wikipedia be non-neutral by taking spains position? @regionalcalifornia please self revert and we discuss it on the talk page. Bananakingler (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Melilla isn't "claimed by Spain", it's a sovereign Spanish city and has been so for centuries. Its status isn't in question. It isn't disputed. Regioncalifornia (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thats the spanish position. Bananakingler (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The name Mřič is the native Tarifit name used by the city's indigenous population. Its inclusion doesn't take a side in any territorial dispute, especially since Morocco doesn't even recognize Tarifit as an official language. lankdadank (chat) 12:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. Bananakingler (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

But isn't Riffian an Amazigh language? Morocco has Amazigh as an official language. Regioncalifornia (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Standard Moroccan Amazigh is but not Tarifit. SMT is mostly based on Central Atlas Tamazight and not considered one of the Zenati languages. They have a similar similarity as Castellano has to Catalan. Bananakingler (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

They're still Amazigh. Regioncalifornia (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you have an actual policy-based reason to remove the Tarifit name from the article? If not, we'll just go around in circles I feel like. lankdadank (chat) 13:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I never said I wanted to remove it from the article but from the infobox. And yes, per NPOV policy. Including in the infobox a name/language directly associated with a state that aims to conquer Melilla isn't neutral to me. Regioncalifornia (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The name and language are associated with the people who are in the city. I think Morocco as a whole tends to call it Malilya or Mlilya, which is where the Spanish name comes from. ～ Misha Vargas (talk | contribs) 09:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

It is the position of the international community. Melilla's status as Spanish territory isn't questioned by anyone except Morocco. Neither the UN nor any other international organization questions Melilla's status. Its status isn't in question. Regioncalifornia (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Melilla is also a Riffian City. You cannot erase that fact because of a conflict between two nations. Bananakingler (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)