Talk:Fez, Morocco/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fes Population[edit]

There is a vandal on-line who has decided that anything connected to Fassi filmmaker Jamal Morelli is a "vanity page" - Rachid el-Ouali is one of Morocco's most important artists and he doesn't have a wiki. I am not sure but this is either anti-muslim maybe someone hurt this vandal's work.

Is there a source for the recently added assertion for Fes being the largest city in world c. 1100s?

Wasnt my my contribution but here you go [1] Jameswilson 01:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a cite, thanks (Collounsbury 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]


This article currently contradicts itself -- intro sentence says third largest city in Morocco, infobox says second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.142.174 (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fez[edit]

anyone have a date on the massacre of christians that people associate the shriners cap to? unsigned comment by IP 172.144.39.92

Not really. -- Szvest 16:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shriner's cap is called a Fez - this video [2] gives a date 800 AD (at 6m25s), but doesn't give sources. The story is controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart Anthony (talk • contribs) 01:34, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

any reason there's no info on the Fes riots of the early '90's on here?unsigned comment by User:Nicole Javaly

The only reason is that we've been waiting for someone like you to contribute. -- Szvest 16:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Town twinning[edit]

I've just reverted this edit for the second time. The reason is simple. Morocco does not officially recognize Israel so the twinning was signed w/ the palestinian authority on May 7th, 1982 instead of Israeli authorities in Jerusalem. Also, Fes calls the city Al Quds and not Jerusalem. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 14:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old moroccan saying[edit]

Question is - how notable and is it worth including in a cultural bit? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me you are going to Fez.

Now if you say you are going to Fez
That means you are not going.
But I happen to know that you are going to Fez.

Why have you lied to me, you who are my friend?

I have never heard of it. They could be lyrics of a song I've never heard of. Where did you get it? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found this, but I do recall it in a Rough Guide morocco guidebook when I was there in 1991. We travellers were heartily amused given the numbers of cnmen who approached backpackers....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll verify. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire[edit]

It's unclear to me who took the city of Fes in 1554. Was it the Wattasid dynasty with the help of the Turks, or did the Ottoman Empire, with the help of the Turks, take Fes from the Wattasid dynasty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katalla (talk • contribs) 20:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oo== fes/fez ==

the place is variously called Fez or Fes all through the article. perhaps it should all be one or the other, with a note explaining which is more correct and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.179.239 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it called "Fes" at all, when the name in English is Fez? Varlaam (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed most usages to "Fez", based on OED (and UNESCO's website). I've not moved the article itself, since Fez is used for the hat (which is named after the city). ƕ (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you did, but it's a soup sandwich now, with Fez, Fes and Fas all over the article. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me, the only "Fes" occurrences left are the wikilinks and the references. Xerxes1337 (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Fes[edit]

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 July 2015[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (pending deletion of target) per COMMONNAME — kwami (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)

Fes → Fez, Morocco – The page itself predominately uses the Fez spelling. Also, the corresponding page Timeline of Fez was recently moved. Reason: Correct English spelling: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fez#Fez. In any case, some consensus needs to be achieved to resolve this inconsistency. Some wiki pages use the Fes spelling, and others use the Fez spelling. Oneforfortytwo (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even French Wikipedia uses fr:Fès. "Fes" is an inaccurate spelling. Khestwol (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

maknes[edit]

abdeilah l fase pilÁ--105.159.183.21 (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)₨Italic text[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fez, Morocco. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fez, Morocco. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery[edit]

@JahlilMA: please stop removing the gallery on the basis that it is "ugly" while citing policies that you seem to not understand. Loaka1 (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t citing the accurate MOS page, my bad. Read WP:IG. JahlilMA (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution; gallery[edit]

Following the contribution by Casual Builder I’ve made a major addition to “Landmarks” section (previously called “Main Sights” section). In the process, I’ve removed a gallery containing the indiscriminate choices of landmarks in the city. I believe the gallery should be removed based on WP:IG which reads 

“Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons”.

If I’m not mistaken, the MOS rule means that Wikipedia is encyclopedia and not a picture book, thus the use of gallery should be minimized unless it adds encyclopedic content. The gallery does not add encyclopedic content to the section; it is just a repository of images which can be linked to commons, and it fits the rule of thumb mentioned in WP:IG as well which reads 

“if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.”

Moreover, it has potential to be uncontrollable; the question “why is this building not included?” can be easily predicted which may lead to the ballooning of the gallery with the lack of proper criteria. Actually the gallery was created by me six months ago as a temporary measure to mitigate the almost complete absence of the content in the section. As the section has been relatively improved, I believe it’s about time we can just remove them all. Objections / criticism welcome. JahlilMA (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with the above. Galleries are unusual for more developed city articles, they just interrupt the text while not adding much information. Images along the sides of the text help to visualize some of the information, but shouldn't play the role of the text itself. There are tons of possible landmarks in every city, so a gallery simply isn't efficient; summarize what's notable in the text, and include links to further articles for people who want to see more. Ideally, in my opinion, I'd suggest only one or two pictures along the sides that exemplify the main types of landmarks/buildings (e.g. one picture of the city walls, one picture of a madrassa, one picture of the Qarawiyyin, one picture of the tanneries, one picture of the Royal Palace, etc). I hope folks can come to an agreement. Casual Builder (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for further expansion: need more on the modern city/Ville Nouvelle[edit]

Just noting for any eager editors out there: This page really needs more information about the overall city today and especially the "Ville Nouvelle" or modern city (outside the old city). The old city (Fes el-Bali) is the focus of tourism and of this article so far, but the majority of the urban area and population is now beyond the old city, so we should aim for the article to reflect the city in its entirety.

This might require someone with more local knowledge or who is able to read local Arabic sources that might talk about the city's contemporary issues and recent history. I'm not fully equipped to do that but highly encouraging anyone who is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casual Builder (talk • contribs) 21:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the photo montage in infobox[edit]

Hey Ifni95, since the primary image in the infobox has been the same for over two years and did not have any outstanding problems, I would recommend that you maybe briefly explain your motivations on the talk page before completely replacing it with another set of pictures (or at least include an edit summary), unless the changes you're making are an obvious improvement or correction. Otherwise it can come across as arbitrary. In this case, for example, I think the bigger picture of the Qarawiyyin courtyard and the picture of the Royal Palace are good choices (both are very iconic locations), but the wide panorama at the top is very small in thumbnail form, the zellij picture doesn't really show any part of the city, and the Batha picture is unfortunately not an actual picture of the Batha Museum (of course the file name says it is, so that's understandable, but the file description clarifies this). Not a huge issue but maybe other editors can give their opinions on this too, in case I'm being too picky? Thanks, Robert Prazeres (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the photo montage to adress some of the issues noted above, by selecting high-res pictures where possible and by sticking to pictures of identifiable major landmarks in the city, similar to the previous photo montage albeit with slightly different pictures (based on the current available selection in Commons). Namely, I've (re-)added pictures of Bab Bou Jeloud, the Bou Inania Madrasa (generally the city's most famous madrasa), the Zawiya/Mausoleum of Idris II (one of the most important religious sites) using a skyline pic which thus partly doubles as a general picture of the medina, a picture of the Chouara Tanneries (one of the most famous tourist/heritage attractions in the city), and switched the picture of the Royal Palace gates with another one only so that the ratio would fit better with the other pictures (and at the same time picked a clearer/lighter picture). I've switched the border colour back to white as per examples of other city articles. I hope these revisions are useful to everyone, but please feel free to suggest further changes. I note, however, that the previous editor (mentioned above) has been making semi-arbitrary changes to Morocco-related articles (especially to images) here and there for a little while now, often undoing previous work without seeking consensus and often without explanation; I hope this will be avoided in the future. Robert Prazeres (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Robert, unfortunately, my english is very bad, but I will try to explain.
I replace the picture because the actual are very ancient, ugly, and give a medieval image of Fes.
A lot of this pictures are ancient, the monument was restaured, most beautiful today, you cannot let picture of 2010 to represent Fès in 2020.
I really don't agree with the actuel pictures. Ifni95 (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ifni95, I appreciate that you've explained yourself but, respectfully, I don't think your reasons are very applicable and they don't seem to match your actions. First of all, images on wikipedia are added based on how informative they are to readers or how much they help readers understand what's said in the text (see MOS:IMAGES). I'm not aware of any criteria that requires that selected images be the most recent possible images, and indeed that would seem like a potentially bad policy. Of course if a particular object or building has noticeably changed in appearance at some recent time then that could be a reason to add more recent pictures to reflect this (but even that could depend on the context). But while you keep saying that the pictures you replace are old and that the monuments have been restored, I've seen you do this several times now on a few pages and in most cases the monuments in question were already restored before the "old" pictures were taken, or they simply haven't been restored during the intervening period at all, which means that the monuments look exactly the same either way. In some cases (including in your recent edit on this page) you've selected images that date from around the same time as, or are even older than, the images you replaced. So that makes it difficult for other editors to see the rationale in your edits, especially when you're replacing relevant pictures with arguably less relevant or lower-quality images, or when you're undoing recent work by other editors without any stated reason. On your other point: I don't see how the current images or the other images you've been removing qualify as "ugly"; this seems to be your personal opinion. In principle it's certainly a good idea to pick nicer-looking images over less pretty ones if both are otherwise fairly equivalent; however, this should be weighed alongside other criteria and I think you need to be more sensitive to what serves the encyclopedic nature of the article. In general, please be more open to the consensus-seeking approach when making changes. By all means, be bold, but don't assume that your judgement is always correct, especially when other editors have already given you feedback on previous edits that have been reverted.
Lastly, for everyone: if further discussion is needed, the images in the current montage in the infobox nearly all date from the last 5 years and/or show the monuments essentially as they look now. That doesn't mean there aren't still potentially better images, and I'd encourage other editors to weign in casually on what they think makes a better introduction to the topic, visually or otherwise. (For example, I've mentioned before that the page is generally lacking on information about the "Ville Nouvelle" or the newer modern city which is now much bigger than the medina. I will try to help out with this myself when I can.) Robert Prazeres (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 March 2021[edit]

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: No consenus. After extended discussion, there is no consensus for the move. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Fez, Morocco → Fes – The city isn't called Fez, it sounds nothing like the real name, the name Fes is widely used in the real world and sounds like the Arabic name. This would also be less confusing because there is another article called Fez which is about the short cylindrical hat. Mhd240 (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support a move to Fes, a commonly used name in English that corresponds directly with the native name فاس (Fes). I also question the need for "Morocco" in the title—it's Boston, not Boston, USA and Milan, not Milan, Italy. إيان (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fes already redirects here, so if the page were to be moved, it would make sense to move it there. However, I oppose this move for lack of sources. O.N.R. (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gbooks 2010-2021 in Fez 13,000 vs "in Fes" 2,900, and another test "Fez is" 1,660 vs 909 for "Fes is". So no. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This would be a reversal of the 2015 Requested Move discussion, where it's mentioned that 'Fès' is the French spelling and 'Fez' the English one. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per my comments in the discussion of 2015. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but maybe weak support as I think I'd prefer moving this to Fez on its own and adding a disambiguator to Fez (the hat) instead, which probably should have been done in the first place. Fez is certainly the most common English spelling for better or worse, but Fes is also used (similar to the Marrakesh/Marrakech variation). Encyclopedia Britannica lists its entry as Fes/Fès, some academic and non-academic books also do the same (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc), and maybe more notably the English Google Maps labels the city Fes (while still using the strictly English spelling Marrakesh too).
I think the best argument for using Fes here is actually to be more WP:CONCISE than the current title and because it constitutes a "natural disambiguation" between this and "Fez" the hat, as per WP:QUALIFIER (quote: Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title.). The "Fes" spelling also has the minor benefit of being more transparently related the Arabic and French names and to related names like Fes el Bali and Fes Jdid.
However, as a drawback: because Fez and Fes are so similar, and people used to the more common spelling may not necessarily be very conscious of the other spelling, using this minor spelling difference to disambiguate the city and the hat might not be very intuitive for general readers. R Prazeres (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gnominite, if it helps,
And as R Prazeres mentioned, using "Fes" helps with consistency with related articles such as Fes el Bali and Fes Jdid. إيان (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Scholar: "Fez, Morocco" 14,000 vs. "Fes, Morocco", 3,810
  • Google News: "Fez, Morocco" 14,100 vs. "Fes, Morocco" 691.
It's not even close. And, oh, the
* official Morocco tourism site uses "Fez" exclusively in English text.
* regional Fez's tourism council uses mostly "Fez" in English text.
Clearly common name in English. Strongly oppose move. Walrasiad (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I note that this would reverse 

 14:56, 7 August 2015 Kusma talk contribs block  42 bytes +42  Kusma moved page Fes to Fez, Morocco: per closed move request

which was the result of #Requested move 30 July 2015 above. Andrewa (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been noted already, but this wouldn't be the first time that previous move discussions have been problematic or insufficient and have been reversed at a later time. In any case I think the arguments at this point are clear above, and the move should be considered on that basis. R Prazeres (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. Consensus can change. But what was not noted above was the line from the page history, which will be overwritten and lost to most readers (even admins) if the move goes ahead. That's one reason I think it helpful to preserve it here. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 13 May 2021[edit]

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: There is a clear consensus for the second move, but not the first one. Based on the various determinants of primary topic status, the hat does get significantly more pageviews and editors argue that both the hat and the city have a high long term significance. As a result, the city article is not moved and the disambiguation page is moved to the base name. Some editors suggested that with the dab page at the base name, it will be easier to determine primary topics, which can be reconsidered at a later date. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– Requesting change with regards to "Morocco" as disambiguation in the title. (I know another RM closed recently but since that didn't pass, this second issue can be addressed independently of the spelling.) The choice of disambiguation here is a little unusual as it implies that this is either the secondary topic in relation to Fez (the hat) or that there are other major cities named "Fez" (which there aren't). The original move from "Fes" to "Fez, Morocco" was presumably the simplest option because the Fez page already existed by then, but I don't believe it's the best lasting solution for the encyclopedia. The primary topic should be the other way around:

  • The "fez" is a hat that is no longer widely used today (for most English readers it's mainly a novelty) and that is directly named after the city (easy to verify from sources in the relevant article or elsewhere). The city, by comparison, is one of Morocco's largest cities, a major historic capital and cultural center for the region for over a thousand years, and a major tourist destination today (again easy to verify with sources on this page or related topics). So, especially with regard to "long-term significance", it's a more intuitive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
  • The proposed change is also in line with a comparable disambiguation like "Casablanca": Casablanca directs to the city, while the movie, which is actually better-known to many English readers and gets more page visits, is disambiguated as Casablanca (film); not the other way around.
  • For what it's worth, web searches are not very reliable clues due to the multiple names of either topic, competing pop culture topics of the same name, and the effect of Wikipedia itself, but a search of the name "Fez" by itself in Google Books and Google Scholar, which is a little more indicative of reliable sources (as per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY), presents results primarily about the city first. Likewise, a search in university libraries typically yields results primarily about the city; e.g. Oxford or Harvard.

Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page visits for Fez (the hat) should not be taken at face value since many of the visitors to that page could be visitors looking for this page or indeed the other topics. On multiple occasions I've even come across links to that page that were intended for this page, because not all editors immediately realize the difference. R Prazeres (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's partly why I'm suggesting disambiguation since neither appears to be primary but I'd note most readers get to articles through Google but there will probably still be some errors. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I partly misunderstood that, sorry. Yes that makes sense too. My argument above is still that there's good reason to treat this as primary topic anyways, just as Casablanca is for that name; but moving Fez to Fez (hat) would also solve some confusion on its own. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1st move, Neutral 2nd move. I'm neutral on the issue of the dab page being moved to the primary vs. the status quo with the hat as primary. (Even as someone with a username referencing the hat, I'm truly neutral on that aspect.) But a complete primary topic swap (of moving the city to the basename) would likely be pretty messy (given the high number of pageviews of both pages, especially given that the hat has almost 2x of the pageviews of the city). If you subtract the pageviews of the city from the pageviews of the hat (if literally everyone who was looking for the city ended up on the hat page first, hypothetically), the pageviews would still be dead-even. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. The hat is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That fact it's rarely worn today is utterly irrelevant to its historical significance as the main form of headgear worn throughout the Ottoman Empire (Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of all topics, not just modern topics). It's much better known than the city in English-speaking countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1st, support 2nd, move Fez (disambiguation) to Fez. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1st, support 2nd, move Fez (disambiguation) to Fez per above arguments.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both, though with my support for the second not contingent on the first. Clearly primary topic by long-term significance belongs to the city with literally over a million people, not some hat. I sincerely doubt that a hat (or a fifty-year-old TV show or a video game) would everm ever displace Manchester, Guadalajara, Oklahoma City, Toulouse or Canberra from their positions as primary topic; I dare @In ictu oculi:, @Ortizesp:, @Crouch, Swale: or any other opposer to explain otherwise. This is a crystal-clear example of long-term educational significance. This is a city with an enormous, rich history and well over a million real live people living, working, creating and interacting in it; compared to a hat, an old TV show and a video game, it's no contest at all, pageviews be darned. I denounce the systemic racism that does not value the educational significance of a city of over a million people just because it's in Morocco and not England. Red Slash 16:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The hat as noted does have more views (usage) and is a level 5 vital article (long-term significance) though the city is level 4. I've never heard of any of the meanings I'm just assessing based on the data that I can see, if one is ahead on usage and the other on long-term significance then the DAB at the base name is probably the best compromise, if there was a hat called Manchester getting more views I'd support making that a DAB as well but there isn't[[4]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This has absolutely nothing to do with "systemic racism"! The hat is not just any old hat. It was the main headgear of almost every male in the Ottoman Empire (which was vast) for a century. How on earth is it systemically racist to claim an item of clothing worn throughout a non-English-speaking empire is primary over a city in a non-English-speaking country? If a hat called a Manchester was worn pretty much all the time by pretty much every male throughout the British Empire for a century then I'm sure there would be questions as to whether the city was the primary topic for that word as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1st, support 2nd, move Fez (disambiguation) to Fez. Per Paintspot, primary swaps are messy. Disambiguate all, cleanup wikilinks, and we can reevaluate after some time has passed. -- Netoholic @ 20:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can't believe this is even being discussed. Fes (or, to appease Wiki:EN folk, "Fez") is one of the most important cities in African history. Main topic without contest—especially over a hat named after it. إيان (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fez, Morocco → Fez but support Fez → Fez (hat). Then leave it for at least a year to see how things settle down. No likely primary topic, but we will see. Whether we move the DAB or just redirect Fez to it makes no big difference, we need to fix the Wikilinks in any case (and I will help, I've never thought it was fair to expect the closer to do it all, supporters should share that responsibility where they are competent to do so). This two-step process, if we do end up shifting the city to the base name, also makes the cleanup practical, as otherwise it is a nightmare and often left incomplete (as others have noted above). Andrewa (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fez,_Morocco/Archive_1&oldid=1140215576"