Talk:Roman province

Clarification

Can anyone tell me how and when the provinces and diocese got 'switched' in England? The Roman diocese contained smaller provinces but the Anglican church in England consists of two provinces divided into smaller diocese.

Palestine, Armenia, Syria as provinces

The given links for some provinces point to the wrong article, in my opinion. I don't want to search the whole history of the Palestine for a few lines about the romans - or at least a link like this "History_of_Crete#Classical.2C_Hellenistic.2C_Roman_and_Byzantine_Crete". --Curero 20:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No map?

Lusitania has a nice map of it's province in relation to the other provinces. Can we not have something similar for this page? -- Joolz 21:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Province Template

I'm not sure how to turn this into a template, and it probably needs some editing as well. However, I think we should refine and use this to classify and standardize all the subsequent province pages it links too, and create the ones that don't yet exist.

I created the Template (Template:Roman provinces 120 AD), and added it to some provinces. --Panairjdde 13:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Province Map

Also, I think this is a nice map that we can use as the basis for identifying the locations of Roman Provinces.

Dioceses in LRE

Responding to John Kelly's edits: I suspect that when the original author of the LRE section of the article on Provinces wrote "Thraciae" etc instead of "Thracia", s/he was in fact intending the nominative plural rather than the genitive singular. This is not I think necessarily wrong - the thought is "the Thracian provinces", and the fact is that certainly some dioceses are referred to in the plural in the Notitia Dignitatum - but some are certainly not and there is not entire consistency (in the west, Africa always seems to be singular, Britanniae always plural, while Italia(e) is sometimes one and sometimes the other), so the Wiki author is at least overenthusiastic. Anyway, the singular seems normally used by modern historians, including the major authority AHM Jones, and I think Wikipedia ought to follow that. So I have tidied accordingly. Mark O'Sullivan 17:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have now standardised the names of prefectures and dioceses into English where the names are in common use. This avoids mixing English "prefecture" unnecessarily with Latin "Gallia", and follows best practice in eg AHM Jones' LRE. Mark O'Sullivan 10:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mark, I am unsure about some of your changes. I'll try to check this. I've made some style changes, we shouldn't have wikilinks on titles of sections.MATIA 15:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've now reversed the substitution of "Hispania" for "Spain" in the diocese name, and for good measure taken "Spain" and "Portugal" out of the provinces list as well. We should try for consistency here, and I see no point in changing all the other diocese names to Latin again at this stage (I suppose Portuguese nationalists might object, even though the English usage in relation to the Roman period is that "Spain" includes Lusitania - I'm also unsure whether the sources use the singular or plural for this diocese name). I'm increasingly dissatisfied with this list, which was initially drawn up with too little detailed knowledge. The problem we have is that the boundaries and names were not stable all the way from Diocletian to Justinian, and the fixes we have on what happened through our sources are very intermittent (eg the Verona List, the Notitia). Hence it is hopeless trying to be precise: we need to settle on some conventions and accept that there are rough-and-readinesses to them. The comments in the current list don't really help either, and would be better out. Unfortunately the maps in Jones are still in copyright - displaying them might be much the best solution. He died in 1970, I think: but thanks to the Disney Corporation copyright now lasts for 70 years after death... Mark O'Sullivan 19:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Using the Notitia seems the most reasonable thing. john k 21:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

BCE / BC

Does anyone here have any objections to my changing the date format to BCE and CE in this article?

--P.MacUidhir (t) (c)

Yes, I have. The article was started with this convention, and I do not see any reason to convert the year format. --Panairjdde 15:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer BCE/CE, as it is more politically correct and therefore more encyclopaedic. --Anon. 11:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ga! We have a rule that says "don't change it." Let's please leave well enough alone. john k 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect map

Incorrect map, see discussion on image talk page--Codrin.B (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)