Talk:Africa (Roman province)

message: Architecture of Africa is currently nominated on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Come to this page and support it with your vote. Help us improve this article to featured status.--Fenice 08:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive]]

message: :Image:Africa Romana.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Africa Romana.gif

message: The "barbaric invasions" has now been reduced to "the great germanic migrations"! I don't think the romans viewed it as either great or as a a migration.Eurocentricism at it's best.
210.50.72.84 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The barbaric hordes 

message: One of my most respected sources, Bruce Gordan's Regnal Chrononlogies, makes a mention in his entry for the city of Constantine in north Africa. And Euratlas' maps of Europe in 500 AD and 600 AD both show a "Kingdom of the Romans and Moors in Algeria, not under Vandal control.
They also show a distinct "Mauri" kingdom in Morrocco.
Would it be plausible to then say that part of the Western Empire survived the fall of Nepos and Syagrius? I unfortunately don't yet have more information, and wanted to bring it to your mutual attentions. It would make a very interesting note in this and a few other articles... Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Romano-Byzantine rule survived in Algeria during Vandal occupations?

message: History of Roman-era Tunisia is an anachronistic topic because Tunisia did not exist at that time. What existed was a recently annexed Carthage that gradually became Roman. However, there may be some useful information, which could be incorporated into Africa (Roman province). --Article editor (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The "anachronism" issue is a red herring, like saying a History of France cannot include prehistory, or the Roman period, or Charlemagne, because in those eras the territory was not called France, nor the people called French. Please note that this issue of nomenclature was addressed in the introductory article History of Tunisia, where various historical names for land of Tunisia are listed. Elfelix (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored history of Tunisia to the condition it was in before being split into several articles. The size is too large to read or navigate easily, so needs to be reduced. I will work on this over the next few days, and any help would be appreciated. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: For anyone interested, there is a discussion regarding merging History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture into History of Carthage being held at Talk:History of Carthage#Merge. There is a new suggestion that material from those articles could be merged into History of Tunisia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Carthage merge

message: When did Africa become a Roman province? Iron Attack rules (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Africa (Roman province) 

message: The recent changes completely modified the scope of the article, which was mainly about Africa Proconsularis  (a redirect), covering Africa Vetus and Africa Nova. I have reverted it for now so we can discuss what the scope should be and hopefully decide on whether to change it (and adjust the lead and the Infobox accordingly) or create another article that covers ll of Roman Africa. M.Bitton (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you describe the revert unjustified when you can clearly see that I left an explanation on the talk page? If anything, it's your revert that is unjustified. M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clearly the content of the article does describe its title, and Roman Africa is much more than Africa Proconsularis. The article is also clearly wrong in many respects starting from the first sentnce. If you want an article on Africa Proconsularis why don't you create one that is also correct?Rjdeadly (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not as clear as you seem to think, hence what I said. I could ask you the same thing, if you want an article that covers all of Roman Africa, including its Mauretanian provinces, why don't you create one? As far as I know, the term Africa (with reference to a Roman province) only applied to what I mentioned above, and that's what this article is about (the province itself and not all of the Roman provinces in North Africa). M.Bitton (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You and the text are wrong: The province "Africa" was the original small province before vetus and proconsularis. The article's title clearly doesn't mean proconsularis only. I understand from your negative destructive attitude so far that you don't intend to contribute to any improvements.Rjdeadly (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2021