Talk:Kingdom of Africa

A fact from Kingdom of Africa appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 June 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Sicilian Normans in the 12th century in what is now Algeria, Tunisia and Libya? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/June.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Africa: Algeria / Libya / Tunisia Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Algeria. This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia (assessed as Mid-importance). Italy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fine article, but if, as the is made quite clear, there was no actual state or dominion called "Kingdom of Africa", shouldn't the title be something else? Descriptive perhaps, "Norman rule in North Africa" or something like this? Constantine ✍ 18:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "kingdom of Africa" is the simplest, most elegant way of referring to the African domains of the Sicilian Normans (and it is well-used in the literature). Calling it "Norman rule. . ." suggests something distinctly Norman about it, but there was almost nothing distinctly Norman about it. I'm open to ideas, though. Srnec (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is well-used in literature as a specific technical term, I am OK with it, especially since I can't really think of an elegant descriptive title either. Anyhow, really nice job! Constantine ✍ 15:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When we move on the history of Tunisia, we end up at some time on the Kingdom of Africa, however, we can't see what was after and before it. Also we'd need general information on it.Tounsimentounes (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point of infoboxes is not to create sequences or timelines of articles. The infobox is cluttersome and ugly. What about a succession box at the bottom, like below? Srnec (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section has something missing. It says Tunisians feared attack, although Roger was too distracted by war with Byzantium to be a threat. So whom did they fear? The Almohads?

I tried to clarify it. Srnec (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

i did make the original edit and i see it as a good edition of the article, as for the kingdom itself i think since it is called the kingdom of Africa and is part of the kingdom of Sicily i would consider it like a constituent country in the same way that the holy roman empire had the constituent countries of the kingdom of Italy and the kingdom of Germany even though they were part of the same kingdom/empire but that is just my reasoning. as for the capital and the dates i merely used the french and Italian versions of the page and those factoids can be easily fixed. AvailableViking (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]