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Outdated article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)

Islam Christianity discrepancy

In the Christianity and Islam section of the Demographics area, the former says that Roman Catholicism is the largest religion in Melilla at 65%, while the latter says that half the population of Melilla are Muslim. Obviously, both cannot be correct. 70.54.170.111 (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

agreed 217.8.28.225 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (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)

Berber script unneeded?

The article on Tarifit language says it's typically written in a modified Latin script, not with the Berber alphabet. Is that mistaken? or should both appear? — LlywelynII 16:59, 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)