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
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
Unfortunately, there isn't a lot to be said about the conquest of Norman Africa, but if this article has any chance of being kept, it needs to be renamed and rewritten from scratch because as it stands, it's just a collection of unrelated and barely related facts that are covered in other articles. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton What do you think about moving this page to "Almohad conquest of Ifriqiya and central Maghreb"? I believe there is enough material on this subject to dedicate a separate article. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the only relevant line in this article, I would say that the best name would be Almohad conquest of Norman Africa. Since the subject is barely covered in RS: Norman Africa for instance, which has more content about it than what you added so far, would be a good candidate for a merge if the article hasn't been expanded with relevant content. That said, I still don't understand why this can't be added to the Almohad article. M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton Even though most RS refer to it as the "Almohad conquest of Ifriqiya," I won't object to your proposal. I still have more content to add, as the Kingdom of Africa article treat the subject from Norman perspective, whereas this new article should treat the conquest from the Almohad perspective. Regarding the tags you added, I don't believe they are necessary, most "conquest" articles include a section providing context before the conquest, (see Muslim conquest of Persia, Muslim conquest of Egypt ..etc) which is essential for readers to fully understand the subject matter. Thanks. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After the rename, that section won't be necessary since there will be a link to an article that covers all of it (and more). M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton Well, as you see the content that i have added sor far to the article is a brief summary of a substantial portion of the Kingdom of Africa article (which is necessary to fully understand the subject). Its inclusion serves the purpose of allowing readers to quickly access the subject matter. Therefore, I consider this section to be highly important and recommend that it not be removed.
I'll try to work on the article later as I'm very busy these days, and your improvements are welcome. For now i will remove the link that i have added to Tunisia article. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that is necessary to understand the background is or should be covered in the linked article. If as you said, the subject is treated from the Norman perspective, then that should be addressed there (what we don't do is create a POV fork). I removed the unsourced categories and the tags (for now). M.Bitton (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton Thank you. Also don't you think that the reason for which you have proposed this article for deletion ("There is nothing in it that can't be added to the Almohad Caliphate article") is not valid anymore? Simoooix.haddi (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
