Talk:Sahara

4,000 BC

I need to learn about the sahara in 3 ,000 B.C and what the people did to survive?

french version

I was reading a book by Paul Bowles (The Sheltering Sky), and I came across terms which I was not familiar with (oued, erg, bled, etc.) I assumed the wikipedia page on the Sahara would have everything, but unfortunately, there is nothing in English on these terms. To my surprise, I found that the French article has all these topics. However, I don't speak French. So I think someone in the community interested in improving the Sahara article would do well to translate those portions of the French article missing from its English counterpart.

I'm not actually a community member, but I thought I could help out.

What about BEFORE the last ice age?

I Know that i can find citations for the fact thatt the sahara once was a mongrove forest cited from walking with prehistoric beasts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.194.190 (talk)

Dyslexic typo/link

Under Flora & Fauna, there is a photo with link text:

"An Urabi oasis lake, with native grasses and Date palms."

Urabi is a link. Problem is, it should be UBARI & the link should be changed. I'm no member & don't have time to figure out how to get in & try to fix it myself.

 Done Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

looks like some one has been having a bit of editing for humour

near the top the text "then the rain came and it flooded and it raind cats and dogs" appears and probably shouldn't

62.49.59.228 (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. It looks like it was vandalism that was initially fixed by a new editor, then accidentally re-introduced, and has now been fixed again in this edit. It's fine to edit the page yourself to remove obviously problematic material like this, if you like. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed removal of redundant publisher information

A number of citations in this article unnecessarily include the publisher for periodicals and websites that have their own Wikipedia article. This information has no value to anyone wanting to check or track down references. For example, publisher=Washington Post Company for references to The Washington Post, or publisher=IMDB for references to Box Office Mojo, only make the article longer - significantly longer when repeated many times - without adding anything useful. Therefore I plan to upgrade the article's citations to remove all such redundant publisher info, bringing them into line with the recommended use of the cite template (see Template:Citation#Publisher). Please raise any questions here or on my talk page. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

well we already know what Sahara is its just that we have a test on monday and i need alot of help please!!!!!!!!!!!1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.250.3 (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Sahara

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sahara's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Voodoo Skies":

• From Dakar: "Dakar, Senegal". Voodoo Skies. Retrieved 2014-02-17.
• From Luxor: "Luxor, Egypt". Voodoo Skies. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
• From Aswan: "Aswan, Egypt". Voodoo Skies. Retrieved 9 July 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Climate examples

We currently have ten (10!!) eleven (11 !!!) twelve (12 !!!) nineteen tables giving examples of climate data. That is way, way too many. Which three or four should we choose to give a balanced picture? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Tagged Climate section. Revert 88.165.192.45?

Excessive inline statistics, often uncited, and barely readable prose: while I have suggested that this editor switch to tables, I'm not sure if the message got through. Reverting a dozen of more edits seem overkill, so I've tagged it for now.

Ideas, anyone? --Forsch (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The same IP editor (in France) has been obsessively tinkering with the article for months, and did include climate tables - for example in this version, which contained 19 separate climate tables as well as all the figures in the main text - but then self-reverted as some of the information was apparently inaccurate. My suggestion would be to create a separate new article on Climate of the Sahara, where tables and detailed figures can be set out, but to revert this article to a state in which it provides an accessible overview. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: I've previously avoided having to read this text, but it is clear that it is extremely poorly written, perhaps by an editor with an inadequate grasp of the English language, and is largely unreferenced. So far it has not been possible to engage the editor concerned in discussion, and it may be worthwhile referring the matter to a wider forum than this talk page. I have left another message on the editor's talk page. I favour a radical approach, rewriting the salient points of the section, based on what reliable sources say, and creating a new spin-off article on Climate of the Sahara, to contain detailed and referenced statistics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I have many, many sources that prove everything I've added to this article. And before I came here, the climate section of the Sahara was just empty and there was nothing, absolutely nothing. I can say I approximatively have more than 100 sources, but I just can't put them all in this article. Most of these sources are deserts meteorology books written by famous meteorologists, some others are good accurate articles about the climate of the hot deserts and more and more. And stop with your references because I have many sources and do you think I will put them all in my text? Did you see the excessively high amount of sources and references at the end of the article about the Sahara? It will be huge and worthless. Do you really think I would be able to put false information on a such known encyclopedia which is visited by millions of people? In addition, I actually study the deserts meteorology and climatology, especially the Sahara. I just want to put all my knowledge in the weather articles. Maybe I have a litte abused on my modifications on this article about the climate but I just want it to be perfect. I don't want to have trouble with you all because the only thing I want is to greatly improve this free encyclopedia because I honestly believe there are lots of lacking and missing information for some articles and lots of useless, boring and annoying sentences for others. And I'm agree with you: it'd be really good to create a fully new article on the Climate of the Sahara because it's a truly interesting thing. 88.165.192.45 (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, and thank you for your contributions. However, I think you are mistaken about several aspects of how Wikipedia works. Firstly, it is essential that the article is useful to most readers - and not excessively long or detailed. That means, I think, that we do need to create a separate article on Climate of the Sahara. Some of the detailed text and tables in this article can be removed and included in the new article (which of course will be linked from this article). Secondly, it is essential that you include information about the sources of your material. No-one is mistrusting you - but of course it would be easy for anyone to add false information, for whatever reason, but to claim that it is accurate. All material in Wikipedia must be capable of being checked by others, and that means that you must provide references, giving reliable sources. The number of references in this article is not excessive, given the length of the article. If you are prepared to add properly referenced material to the suggested new article, others will edit the text in this article, to make it more accessible for readers. But, thank you again for all your efforts, which are certainly appreciated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand that better now! Yeah, I noticed I've added many things, which aren't necessarily useful for the article about the Sahara and people may not rely on some parts of the article which aren't sourced or referenced. I've really understood your thinking now and I thank you again for your explanations because I didn't understand the way Wikipedia works. I think we should create a new accurate article about the Climate of the Sahara with referenced information. This time, I'll put all my sources and all my references in the article because I now know that people must have a way to check whether the given information is true and reliable or not. I'm ready to cooperate with you because I find your idea very good and I want to improve Wikipedia, so I entirely agree with you. And again, thank you for appreciating my work, thank you very much, it's like a job for me. It'd be great if I or some other people could edit the current Climate section in the Sahara article, in order to make it better, to enhance, to shorten it and to summarize it. As well, a detailed article exclusively about the Climate of the Sahara would be much better. As you said it, the new article should normally be matched with the Climate section. I think this idea seems to be ideal to help improving the Sahara article. 88.165.192.45 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures

The temperatures section is pretty silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.30.174 (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)