Template:Did you know nominations/African humid period


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

African humid period

 * ... that before 6,000 years ago, Africa was much wetter than today, the Sahara desert did not exist yet and humans left rock paintings (pictured) in it?
 * ALT1:... that future global warming may lead to a substantial shrinkage of the Sahara desert?
 * ALT2:... that changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun over 10,000 years ago led to the disappearance of the Sahara desert?
 * Reviewed: Marie-Louise Gagneur
 * Comment: The image is only for the first hook suggestion.

Moved to mainspace by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 10:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC).


 * I'd agree with the first hook suggestion saying "yet". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with the first hook suggestion saying "yet". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * How is this different from the Neolithic Subpluvial, on which we already have an article (from which you have linked to here, btw)? On a quick look they seem duplicates, though I expect this is better. I can see you start this period earlier, but they end at the same time, no?  Do we need to keep both articles? Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. Seems like "neolithic subpluvial" was the older name for the concept and now "African humid period" has become established. Perhaps start a merger discussion on Neolithic Subpluvial? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should. I'd put the GA nom on hold till then (or leave it queueing I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll do this. Given the pace of GA reviews I suspect that the merger discussion will conclude much earlier, so I'll leave it queued. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge discussion was closed as "no consensus"; nomination can presumably be promoted at any time. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)