Talk:Moroccan architecture

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dhaifalotaibi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

[Untitled]

Is yeseria the right term for Morroccan carved plasterwork? Is the carved plaster in the image really, as the link says, tadelakt? It would seem difficult to polish an elaborate carving; is it saponified and then carved? HLHJ (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent revisions

What I intended as minor clean-ups ended up being a larger expansion, so I'm making a section here in case any other editors want to provide feedback/criticism on what I've done.
One thing I forgot to explain in the edit summaries is that I reorganized the existing sections a little bit: I've moved two of the sections to within "architectural features" as they all seem to involve general descriptive information about Moroccan architecture. I've moved the "domestic architecture" section down below this, as I would argue this is something more specific and the article should, ideally, proceed from the more general to the more specific; after this could go new "religious architecture" and "military architecture" sections, for example. Robert Prazeres (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added more material but I've tried to stick to contributions that are straightforward improvements (like expanding or adding sections). However I think any further work now needs to rework other sections. I'm less sure what would count as improvement here, so discussion/suggestions/feedback is welcome. It might be useful to compare with higher-quality articles with analogically similar topics, e.g. Chinese architecture. Here are my initial thoughts, since I might keep working on this page when I have time:

• "Influences" section now overlaps a bit with the history section, but that's maybe a good thing as it can elaborate on some of those points; however, some current points are vague and lack sources, and/or probably not quite right or not really saying something significant (e.g. "tiles" are a generic building material and didn't really come from "Islam" or Moorish Spain in particular; whereas zellij tiling developed regionally in al-Andalus and Morocco). Among other things, Moroccan and Moorish architecture are, in the eyes of most scholars, essentially the same architectural style and so this relation between the two topics needs to be clearer. So all in all, I guess the section needs to be more nuanced.
• "Architectural features" maybe needs the most radical revisions. Since there's now a section on building materials/methods and a section on the different types of traditional buildings (both of which could still be revised/expanded), maybe the page needs a section that focuses more on features that are common to all of the above: e.g. horseshoe arches, recurring decorative motifs (calligraphy, geometry, floral motifs, darj wa ktaf and similar types, etc), the use of green roofs to mark mosques and royal buildings (to my knowledge?), etc. Some existing points are a bit questionable I think: the whole table about the meanings of colors, for example, is apparently based on one book and looks like a non-scholar's take on the meanings of Moroccan design aiming to appeal to (probably non-Moroccan) interior design fans, and might not be appropriate for encyclopedic content.
• Further sections might be warranted. One might be something on "regional variations" (the architecture of the Imperial cities is essentially the same, but the architecture in northern Morocco has some differences, as does the pre-Sahara and Sahara regions). Another might be more information on modern and contemporary architecture in Morocco: not just colonial architecture but modern architecture built recently are still being built, including with international architects (e.g. the new Opera house by Zaha Hadid's firm in Rabat, if I saw correctly).

Robert Prazeres (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Robert Prazeres, Thank you for your outstanding work! It seems like you know what you're doing, so no points about the content from me. The only concern I have is about the pages. I think you "need" to put the page(s) in every reference, It makes life easier for our readers (students, scholars, etc). -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to know about the page numbers; I haven't been sure how necessary they are on Wikipedia so in theory I've only been indicating page numbers where I thought something wouldn't be easy to find via the index or table of contents (and for quotes). A number of the references here are references to books as a whole and thankfully those don't seem to need a page number as per WP:PAGENUM. But I've definitely been more casual about it for bigger edits in order to write more content more quickly, so when I have time I'll try adding some page numbers back in to help out. And PS: if you (or other editors) happen to come across any spots where a page number would seem especially needed (e.g. controversial or highly specific claims, etc), feel free to tag it with and I'll prioritize those; or tag me and ask me on the talk page for any issues in general. Thanks! Robert Prazeres (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Update for the latest changes: I've added a new section ("Forms and decorative motifs", but maybe I'll revise the title later) about general architectural and decorative features that cross periods and building types. There could still be some expansion and reorganization left to do. In the meantime though, this new section, along with the other sections recently added, essentially covers the same information that's in the previous "Architectural features" section, except in more detail (for the most part) and with more scholarly sources. As I mentioned earlier, some parts of the earlier "Architectural features" section were also questionable in my view, and the rest of it is mostly unsourced. So, with that in mind, I think it's not harmful to just delete that material now. It's always possible to bring back any deleted information by reinserting it with reliable references later. Other feedback welcome. Robert Prazeres (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Another heads-up: will try to revise the "influences" section, which is the last one currently needing immediate work. There is some significant unreferenced content and some of it just repeats content that is now better presented elsewhere (in my opinion of course). I'm also wary that there are no scholarly sources I'm aware of that list "influences" on Moroccan architecture in a blunt way like it's done here, and so this kind of section might be prone to (unintended) original research. However, I think there are some tangible things to include, but it will require replacing the content of the "Arab" and "Moorish" sections in particular and reframing them into something useful (e.g. focusing on the influence of Cordoba, which was a clear external influence; and mentioning the imports of ideas from the Middle East which continued throughout much of Morocco's Islamic history). I also want to avoid any circular and tautological information: e.g. Moroccan architecture as we generally think of it is already part of of both "Islamic" and "Moorish" architecture, so saying it is influenced by the latter is probably circular unless it's based on a more specific argument with sources. Anyways, I'm saying this here so that there's a space to point out further problems and provide feedback as needed, as with before. R Prazeres (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've added what I can for now. It more or less inevitably required repeating some facts and claims that I had already added in appropriate contexts elsewhere, so it's not my favourite section but I hope it's an improvement that still reflects the intention of the section. And as a minor thought for the future: I wonder if there's an argument for whether the "Amazigh" subsection belongs here as an "influence" or whether it should be placed elsewhere (or as its own section) to be described as simply one part of Moroccan architecture more generally. R Prazeres (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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:

• Mešita Hasana II, Casablanca, Maroko.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sidebar navbox

I've reverted an edit because I think it's better to leave out the "Islamic culture" sidebar navbox at the beginning of the page: not because it's wrong but just for space considerations, as the added navbox breaks up the lead images and for smaller displays it might cause disruption to the first sections below as well. "Islamic architecture" and "Islamic art" navboxes are already included at the bottom of the page. Large sidebars aren't included in a lot of comparable articles like Spanish architecture, Portuguese architecture, Chinese architecture, etc, or for that matter at Islamic architecture itself and other related styles. Maybe they can be added to those pages too of course, but architecture articles tend to (rightfully) have a lot of images to help readers, so I think it's worth balancing priorities based on the available space. Since this is a topic about any architecture in Morocco specifically and the navbox covers a much broader topic beyond Morocco, a lot of it not directly related, my personal judgement is that it's not essential enough to occupy the limited space here.

But that's strictly my own opinion so I'd welcome what other editors think is best. Feel free to revert again and discuss. Or suggest other ways to organize images, layout, etc. Thanks all, R Prazeres (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Possibility of recreating article if a future corresponding section here ends up becoming very large. R Prazeres (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Propose merging Moroccan style into Moroccan architecture.

This "style" appears to be nothing more than the trend of using design elements or decor from Moroccan architecture in contemporary homes (often in Morocco anyways, often hotels). Both the meaning of the title and the topic itself overlaps ambiguously and quite significantly with the topic of Moroccan architecture here. There's no properly sourced info at the stub page, but even if you could expand it with reliable sources, it's unclear why you couldn't simply add a section here describing this recent trend? The article's existence seems to premised on the fact that a few coffee-table books on interior design have been published in the last couple of decades with the titles like "Moroccan style", but these kinds of books are just as likely to reflect commercial/personal views than reliable scholarly views. In this book, which seems published by a more reliable author, the substantial information seems to merely repeat some generalizations about traditional Moroccan architecture rather than describing a new or distinctive style. As is, the sub is likely to just attract more puffery like what I recently deleted. R Prazeres (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Support: A highly redundant stub. The use of a certain architectural style in contemporary architecture does not need a separate page - just appending. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Weak support. It could be that the new Moroccan style has something special about that merits a seperate article, but I don't see a problem with merging for now. If the section about "New Moroccan Style" becomes too large, we can split it off again.-- Ideophagous (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Closing comment: Enough time has passed so I'm going to close this discussion and merge. Since there's nothing verifiable currently at the source article, it will simply be a redirect with nothing copied here. If there's verifiable content to add, that can be done in the future with proper citations. I'm leaving this link here to the source article prior to merge so that future editors can see what was there, if useful, especially the short list of potential references. R Prazeres (talk) 18:25, 7 November 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.