Talk:Agadir Oufla

Name changing

The real name is "Agadir Oufella" why it has Kasbah of Agadir as name ? Ayour2002 (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The "real name" needs to be demonstrated per WP:COMMONAME in English, not always the local or native language name. This article move should have gone through a WP:RM process. It's unclear what the most appropriate title should be now. R Prazeres (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

PS: It also looks like there are various spellings/transliterations of the local name, and the current one may not even be the most common one. The sources that are cited in support of the names also refer to the site as the "Kasbah" first, so they seem to further undermine this choice. R Prazeres (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph

Prazeres can you explain please why you have deleted the last paragraph? Thanks Ronavni (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I explained it clearly here. You then reverted that without further explanation ([1]), so per WP:BRD I restored the previous version. If you'd like to accept a brief, summarized statement in its place, as I suggested, then I would be fine with that, but otherwise the section you added is not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:WEIGHT and possibly even per WP:RELIABLE. The source is certainly not of high quality and there's no reason to have such a long paragraph effectively acting as a book report about this random author. The only important point could be said in one sentence. R Prazeres (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

so fix it! It is not acceptable to make a rapid deletion without any discussion. Take care, this article does not worth my efforts as editors behave like they are the government of the Wikipedia. Ronavni (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I did fix it. That was the point.

I should also note that you closely copied part of the source's own text in your edit, without using quotation marks. Even for an open-source publication, you should not be copying or closely paraphrasing the source directly, which could constitute WP:PLAGARISM. The source's CC license is the only thing making me unsure whether a revision deletion is warranted. R Prazeres (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, understand. I summarized the review in one and a half sentence without any title. hope this satisfactory now. Thanks, Ronavni (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

R Prazeres Why do you think that the source is not reliable and this is not a research that i have made? What is your real motivation by erasing what I try to write? Ronavni (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "this is not a research that i have made"? R Prazeres (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

R Prazeres At the first time you wrote that I gave an unproportional room to a so called neglected academic article (you wrote that I summarized like this is a book), and besides that I used the author wording which is a Copyright infringement. So, I summarized all that review in one and a half sentence, then you removed it under the reason: "removing side comment that would fall under WP:ORY". So, I checked the WP:ORY (Wikipedia:No original research) and that's what I meant. I've just summarized very shortly a research publication, which is not my research. The second issue is the called for reliable sources, and the review article published after peer review. In Such a case, and I consider your professionality in the Islam architecture which is very immpressive, at least you had to open a discussion on that deletion. The author is from a university in Agadir, and taking into account that criticizing the government/the king is not very popular on Morocco (to say the least), the Wikipedia community must listen to such a review, and I wrote at the end of the paragraph that this is the only review that I have found in the Internet. Thanks, Ronavni (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. For reliability, the source in question might not be published by a high-quality journal: it may be linked to MDPI ([2]), a possible predatory publisher ([3]), and the writing quality and tone of the article doesn't always match that of a high-quality peer-reviewed publication, among other reasons. But I have no objection to including it as is, so I don't consider this a remaining problem unless other editors object in the future.

In any case, I did not delete your comment, but your writing in English requires further copy-editing, which is what I did. I linked the general policies that apply to this (WP:TONE and WP:EPSTYLE); essentially, in an encyclopedic article, you simply state the information from the source neutrally and briefly, and nothing else. The reason I removed the last sentence ("No other additional sources were found to support that article's approach.") is that this type of comment is not necessary or appropriate for Wikipedia. There may or may not be other published sources relevant here, but it's not up to you or me to say so, because that's technically WP:OR (in other words, it's an additional comment that's not from the cited source itself). Such comments may be left for other editors on the talk page, but they shouldn't be in the article. I hope that helps. R Prazeres (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)