Talk:Britannia Prima

message: Diocletion abdicated in 305AD and therefore could not have created this province in 312.
:We don't know when the province was created. We know when it was created by. — LlywelynII 06:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Diocletian and dating

message: Mustafa -- Good, thorough article. I would divide it up into 3-4 paragraphs to make it easier to read, and also make the important names/words blue links to other articles. Also try to categorize the article as part of Roman Civ, and a map would be nice. Besides those technical concerns, the content looks good. -Anoop
:Done. — LlywelynII 06:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know its position, size, or significance. — LlywelynII 06:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Done. — LlywelynII 06:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

text: We don't know that much yet. — LlywelynII 06:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Ehrenkater & Cplakidas: it's great if you want to help. All of these articles on late Roman provinces could use cleanup: while we should absolutely not lose the methodology or historical sources, we absolutely should include more details on present scholarship and precisely why (apart from instinctive aversion to things suggested by Charles Bertram) more people, e.g., now think that Lindum was more likely to have been a provincial capital than Deva or why Prima's procurator couldn't've been in a different city from the capital given that Britannia's was certainly busy in London before Bodicca's Revolt.
Ehren:
*  isn't as clear as it could be: your misuse of apostrophes is simply wrong. Regardless, don't change the existing conventions in articles to introduce punctuation errors. (Of course, that said, the original "~ the ~" you were fixing at the time was a typo and thanks for catching it.)
* Don't misquote sources. There's a link immediately provided: If you've got concerns, go look for yourself. That's why we have them.
* Especially don't misquote or "correct" sources when the entire point of the passage is original monkish error.
* : As an editorial note, [sic] takes brackets, not parentheses. You should (generally speaking) never use it in running text. It isn't the best Latin but I thought the immediately-provided source was enough to clear up any questions on that score, but if you want to leave notes to other editors it's better to use a comment rather than something that displays in the article itself: 
C'plak:
* There are more helpful things for you to do than just move paragraphs around. There are much more helpful things for you to than to remove links to more thorough treatments on topics and to introduce worse, clunkier phrasing. Roman Britain is Roman Britain: we don't call the article the Roman conquest of the Roman-conquered parts of Britain and we don't have phrase things that way here, either. If you think it could be legitimately confusing (remember there are two maps of what the Romans ruled immediately next to the text), then add a parenthetical note explaining that at the time "Britain" was the Roman area and "Albion" was the name of the island. I think that's overkill, but ymmv.
* Unless you're going to move all of the s down, don't make it look like the article is thoroughly using the sources below the citations by granting them a separate section. If anything, find inline places to use them or move them here to the talk page until someone actually cites them to some purpose.
 — LlywelynII 06:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Editors

message: Don't clutter the page with unused sources, but feel free to place them here so future editors can find things to include:
*
*
*
 — LlywelynII 07:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for article expansion