Talk:North Africa

Which of these two sentences best describes North Africa? 23:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• A. North Africa, or Northern Africa, is a region encompassing the northern portion of the African continent.
• B. North Africa, or Northern Africa, is a region that contains the Sahara Desert.

• C. It should be: North Africa (sometimes Northern Africa), is a region....

Neither A nor B, but C, because OR-ing them like that implies an equivalence which does not exist. In fact, North Africa is about 17 times as common as the alternative. No opinion on the "Sahara Desert" part of it. Mathglot (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A "region encompassing the northern coast of Africa" might sound less redundant. Senorangel (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but encompasses doesn't define it. Most people wouldn't think of the Sahara desert as on "the northern coast". I.e., it's imprecise. Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe Northeastern United States or Western United States are better examples to follow. Senorangel (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Mathglot that using "or" equates "Northern Africa" with "North Africa". As for the rest of the wording, I recommend simply combining both A and B. I don't know whether to call it C or D.

North Africa (sometimes Northern Africa), is a region encompassing the northern portion of the African continent and much of the Sahara Desert. pillowcrow 20:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. What about:

North Africa is a region encompassing Northern Africa and much of the Sahara Desert therein.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see a RS describing North Africa in terms of what it encompasses (all of the Atlas Mountains, part of the Sahara, the southern part of the Mediterranean coast, etc.). M.Bitton (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sahara desert is recognized as a landmark around the world. It is mostly a feature of Northern Africa as it covers much of it and is its most notable geographic characteristic (at least region-wide). Therefore, I think it should be in the first sentence.

I concede that MOS:LEADREL states, According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.

What is your proposal? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant and WP:OR (feature wise) because this article is about North Africa and not the Sahara (which has its own) or any other feature or landmark. In other words, I disagree with the inclusion of the Sahara in the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't read the second half of my comment... Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think mentioning WP:OR about info of the first sentence is misguided. Reason being is that there is more latitude in providing info in the first sentence than in the body of the article. Per MOS:LEADCITE, The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. This in combination with MOS:LEADREL, Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text.

I consider the Sahara being one of the most notable geographic features in North Africa is a basic fact that would be helpful to include in the first sentence. I know you disagree; therefore, in this case, because of your objection, MOS:LEADCITE also states, The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found reliable sources.

North Africa is a region encompassing Northern Africa that is mostly covered by the Sahara Desert.^[2][3] Thinker78 (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cherry picked sources that are not not subject don't have much weight. What you consider to be important is just your opinion. When I think of North Africa, the Sahara is the last thing that springs to mind because I think not only of what it means today to some people, but also to what it meant throughout its known history. If it helps, I can also quote a scholarly source that describes it as a region that is situated between the Sahara Desert and the Mediterranean Sea.

As for you question, I agree with Mathglot: "northern Africa" is not synonymous with "North Africa", and it therefore, should either be removed or at the very least have "sometimes" added to it. M.Bitton (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Those are reliable sources. I chose them from the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
2. "What you consider to be important is just your opinion." Yes, this is a discussion, you have your opinion, I have my opinion, others have their opinion. That's usually how discussions work.
3. Regarding Northern Africa vs North Africa, I think User:Mathglot was not saying they are not synonymous but rather that they are not equivalent in the degree of common use they have: "In fact, North Africa is about 17 times as common as the alternative." Simply bolding without using connective words like "or" or similar is not stating how often it is used, but simply it is a way to avoid redundancy so we don't end up saying North Africa is the region of North Africa. But what is your take? What is the meaning of Northern Africa?
4. Regarding your source, check the map. Is your source saying North Africa is only the small strip of land between the desert (in yellow) and the Mediterranean? If so, it appears to directly contradict the sources I found and what currently is stated in the article Sahara, "The desert covers much of North Africa". Also, it doesn't seem to fit with the article List of regions of Africa. Regards,

Thinker78 (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my source, it's a scholarly source. The fact that it contradicts the sources that you provided is one more reason why the Sahara shouldn't be included in the lead.

On the other hand, that's my map. M.Bitton (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice map. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I drop my suggestion about the Sahara being in the first sentence. But I still think we can do different than providing a semi-redundant and repetitive first sentence. We can take the hint of MOS:FIRST, If the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.

This is another proposal,

The region of North Africa borders the southern Mediterranean Sea, opposite Europe. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Sudan and Western Sahara do not border the Mediterranean. Senorangel (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A longer sentence minus Europe can sound more definitive. The region of North Africa consists of states that border the southern Mediterranean Sea, adjacent territories that border the Atlantic Ocean or the Red Sea, and several nearby islands. Senorangel (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds nice to me. It certainly provides a better description and idea to the reader than the current first sentence. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton@Mathglot@Pillowcrow@Shazback@JacobTheRox Thinker78 (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's precise, and it avoids the Sahara complication. pillowcrow 18:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mauritania considered part of North Africa or only sometimes, like Sudan? Senorangel (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the article it is not mentioned. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as an improvement and I have yet to come across a single RS that describes North Africa as such. Essentially, this description makes it needlessly complicated for someone who's not familiar with the subject to actually visualize where NF is (which is the whole purpose of the sentence). M.Bitton (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• C. I agree with Mathglot's suggestion (just reiterating this as I already mentioned it in the above discussion). I strongly oppose the inclusion of the Sahara in the first sentence (again, this has been explained). Equally, given that we state in the lead that "there is no singularly accepted scope for the region", I don't see how the inclusion of any specific definition in the first sentence can be justified, especially if it departs from the most common definition that is listed in the following paragraph. M.Bitton (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Implemented Senorangel proposal. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Undone Please wait for the RfC closer to decide what to do next. M.Bitton (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What closer? Did you request this to be closed? Per WP:RFCCLOSE, Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance.

I pinged you. If you had concerns or objections it would have been appropriate to respond to the ping. I was trying to determine consensus before implementing the proposal. What is your objection that you reverted? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't, but you're welcome to do so. The editors that are involved (such as yourself) are not the ones who determine what the RfC consensus is. What was proposed in one of the !Votes can to be discussed once this RfC is closed. M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I simply saw the discussion had run its course and simply took action as in any other discussion. Again, I pinged editors who participated and no one replied. I waited a week to see if someone would reply and no one did. Then I simply assumed no one had objections to the proposal and I implemented it.

Per WP:RFCEND, When an RfC is used to resolve a dispute, the resolution is determined the same way as for any other discussion: the participants in the discussion determine what they have agreed on and try to implement their agreement.

I don't know if you had the chance to look athe RFCCLOSE guidance I shared in my previous comment. No outside assistance is needed to determine consensus unless it's needed.

In addition, please check the policy section WP:TALKDONTREVERT. You shouldn't revert randomly just because. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from throwing irrelevant jargon at me. This RfC was started because of you, so now you wait until it's properly closed by someone other than you. 21:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidance is not irrelevant jargon, it's what editors should attempt to follow. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat again: as someone who is involved (actually, you are the cause of the RfC), you simply cannot decide what the consensus of the RfC is. Is that clear enough for you? Discussing an !vote doesn't constitute anything (that's why I and I suspect others ignored your ping back then). If you have yet another thing to suggest, then you wait for the RfC to close or you can start a new discussion about it if you wish. M.Bitton (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly state opinions without citing any relevant Wikipedia guidance. Please share with us relevant Wikipedia guidance instead of only your opinions. I already mentioned relevant guidance that you dismiss as jargon in favor of yet your personal opinions. That's not how things work in Wikipedia. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to cite what I expect everyone to know. If you're not familiar with the word involved, then you most certainly are in position to lecture anyone about how Wikipedia works. M.Bitton (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFCCLOSE, if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an editor involved may close the discussion.

I interpreted a consensus clear because,

• Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change.
• I pinged everyone involved in the discussion more than week after User:Senorangel made their proposal for first sentence.
• No one made a comment about the proposal nor objections made.
• I waited a further week.
• By that time it was more than a month since the start of the RfC
  • Per WP:RFCEND,

    • An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be.

    • There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the {{rfc}} tag) 30 days after it begins

    • But editors should not wait for that. If one of the reasons to end RFCs applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course.

      • One of the reasons to end the RFC was if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an editor involved may close the discussion.
      • Another reason to end the RFC was was The discussion may just stop, and no one cares to restore the {{rfc}} tag after the bot removes it.

Per WP:WHENCLOSE,

if the discussion stopped, and editors have already assessed the consensus and moved on with their work, then there may be no need to formally close the discussion unless the process (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) requires formal closure for other reasons.

Per WP:CLOSE, There are no policies that directly dictate how to close a discussion.

Per WP:RFCCLOSE,

If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance.

• Given that no one objected to the proposal of Senorangel, I didn't consider the matter contentious.

As I mentioned in the talk page of User:M.Bitton, now that they made their objection known and raised such issue about this, I advised "the way to go is making a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests". Thinker78 (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said what I had to say and see no reason to repeat it, let alone read your wall of colourful text, so please stop pinging me. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• See previous discussion

• Question Looking at MOS:REDUNDANCY wouldn't this be a good article to not start with the article name? Something like The northern portion of Africa is often consided to be a distinct region of the continent for geographical, historical, linguistic and political reasons. Shazback (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Shazback, I've taken the liberty of moving your comment to the "Threaded Discussion" section, as it seems pretty clear it's not a !vote. If you disagree, feel free to move it back, but I think it works better here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, that is an appeal to elegant variation and a wrong interpretation of MOS:REDUNDANCY. This is not like the awkward wording in the Mississippi river flood example at MOS. Here, I believe MOS:LEADSENTENCE should guide us:

  • The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.

  The point I'm trying to make is that Option A is repetitive, but not redundant (i.e., "superfluous", "unnecessary", "inessential") because "in the northern portion of Africa" (or similar) is essential information. In this case, in order to comply with the what suggestion from MOS:LEADSENTENCE, non-redundant repetition is essential to make sure we accurately convey what the topic of the article is. For a more detailed treatment of the tension or difference between redundant and repetitive see this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for moving this to the appropriate section

  I agree that noting that it refers to a region in the northern portion of Africa is essential information (if only to differentiate from South Africa and clarify that it is not a political entity).

  I do not think it is appropriate to note that it contains the Sahara Desert in the lead when Sahara appears to contradict this. The article on the Sahara states and maps that the Sahara covers large parts of Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Western Sahara, Sudan and Tunisia. Further noting that "important cities located in the Sahara include Nouakchott, the capital of Mauritania; Tamanrasset, Ouargla, Béchar, Hassi Messaoud, Ghardaïa, and El Oued in Algeria; Timbuktu in Mali; Agadez in Niger; Ghat in Libya; and Faya-Largeau in Chad." Whereas this article as of the current revision has one mention of "Mauritania" outside of the country statistics table, and no mention of Mali, Niger or Chad at all. The current lead map also does not highlight these four countries.Emphasis mine in all text in this paragraph

  Afterwards it is a question of style. My personal preference is for lead sentances that are a bit more informative than, say Eastern Europe "Eastern Europe is a subregion of the European continent.", but this is just a personal preference and not in scope of the RfC nor worthy of one. Shazback (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]