Talk:Africa (Roman province)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Africa (Roman province) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa: Algeria / Libya / Tunisia High‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Algeria portal This article is supported by WikiProject Algeria (assessed as High-importance).
	Libya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia (assessed as Top-importance).

Greece: Byzantine

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Military history: African / Roman & Byzantine / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Africa Romana.gif

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)[reply]

The barbaric hordes

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)[reply]

But surely the Romans are/were also European? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.190.184 (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romano-Byzantine rule survived in Algeria during Vandal occupations?

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)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Province → Africa (Roman province) — Because "Africa Province" sounds utterly unnatural and to bring the article into line with the other provinces with disambiguators in Category:Ancient Roman provinces. 189.136.163.28 (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree absolutely. Have you checked the number of article affected? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On that category page, I can only see Iudaea Province (didn't see it the first time). Ugh. 189.136.163.28 (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should probably also be Iudaea (Roman province). Someone's been doing some strange things to the Africa article. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

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)[reply]

Merge. Agree that the topic "History of Roman-era Tunisia" is not meaningful. Probably "Africa (Roman province)" is best place. Hard to define precisely with articles on Carthage, Carthaginian Empire and Phoenicia in existence. While they don't overlap in time, they certainly do in geography. Student7 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let it Be. The artilce "Africa (Roman province)" is predominantly cast in the form of a series of lists of articles, which lists work well when collected into that current article. The "History of Roman-era Tunisia" article, however, contains the text of an historical narrative. Each article now has its strengths and utility. To attempt to merge the two would likely result in the diminution of both articles. Elfelix (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There are other related Tunisia history merges being discussed at the moment (see below), and it may well be that the whole scheme of the history of Tunisia articles will need restructuring as there appears to be a fair degree of overlap resulting in some confusion for the general reader. The parent article History of Tunisia is unhelpful as it is, though it used to look like this: [1] which was quite satisfactory. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

History of Carthage merge

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)[reply]

Requested move 8 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to rename this article. Perhaps it would be better to create subarticles and spin some stuff from this article into them. Jenks24 (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Africa (Roman province) → Africa Proconsularis – Per its near neighbours which take on the Latin name: Mauretania Tingitana and Mauretania Caesariensis and Lycia et Pamphylia and Hispania Baetica. Also, it's too confusing for the continent of the same name. Plus it was later divided into sub-provinces so this article should only reflect the name of the original province. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, that's how say Westermann does it: Do in the Roman Empire like the Romans! Arcarius (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, no objection to this move. We have some other Roman provinces with similar names; should any of them also be under consideration for a move? P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it wasn't always Africa Proconsularis. This article covers the original Africa (Vetus) and Africa Nova as well. Srnec (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions Africa Vetus which I take to be synonymous with Africa Proconsularis. Is this correct? Apart from a stray line in the illustration, the article does not mention Africa Nova. Was this a real province? Or was it just the name given to the new Numidian Kingdom? If so, it could hardly be described as a province. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Africa Nova was a real province between 46 BC and AD 27, when it was united with Africa Vetus to form Africa Proconsularis. The Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, for example, has articles on all four of these Africas (Africa, Africa Vetus, Africa Nova and Africa Proconsularis). The article on Africa is very general, since it is about not just the original province but the whole history of Roman Africa (i.e., what the Romans called Africa). Srnec (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles on Roman provinces tend to be around the time of the greatest extent of the Empire (i.e. under Trajan circa 117AD). Would you object if this was the main thrust of the article while relegating the Republican entities so a separate historical note? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to "relegating the Republican entities to a ... note", yes. As for the page title, it seems to me that the current title is a better catch-call for the all the provinces that lay in the region the Romans called Africa and which had "Africa" in their names. If we move to Africa Proconsularis, then we should probably have article on all the African provinces. Srnec (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose plain "Africa" is more common vernacular even in history department circles. Nominator mentions distinguishing this from the continent of the same name, but (Roman province) is not in the least ambiguous. Also, consistent with Asia (Roman province) and Egypt (Roman province). Ribbet32 (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what if we have an umbrella article under either the current title, or perhaps "Roman Africa" (since that wouldn't imply that it was a single province), with separate articles splitting off information that applies specifically to the daughter provinces of Africa Vetus, Africa Nova, and Africa Proconsularis? These wouldn't all have to be created at once, but by organizing the present article chronologically it would be easy to split off details into a separate article if and when there are enough of them to warrant one. This way, other articles could link directly to the appropriate one, if it exists, or here, if it doesn't. P Aculeius (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are links to all these names as the nomenclature is very interchangeable. Irrespective of what the name of the article is the names Roman North Africa and Africa (Roman Province) need to be kept as redirects, because even collectively we could not go through and recode every article where these phrases exist. I think we should leave it as it is.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Africa (Roman province)

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

October 2021

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)[reply]

@Rjdeadly: 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)[reply]

@M.Bitton: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@M.Bitton: 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)[reply]