I've started adding sites to the new connection 'Ancient Roman Colonies' (outside of current Italy's borders), but am not really comfortable with the subject.
Are all Roman remains outside Italy necessarily proof of more or less permanent settlements of Romans? Should these be called Colonies at all? I guess if you start constructing an amphitheatre you've come to stay...

i wouldn't consider every roman site, outside of italy, a colony. just like one wouldn't consider Scotland and colony of England.

A colony in antiquity was not the same as what we think of today as a colony, such as the British and French colonies in Africa, which were huge regions that turned into nations. Back then the term meant a settlement - the Greeks founded hundreds of colonies all across the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, but the Romans to a much lesser extent. They usually took over existing cities and romanized them, i.e. built a forum, an amphitheatre etc. They did not necessarily populate them with Romans, but rather introduced the Latin language and Roman customs and "made" the locals Romans. They did found some cities such as Cologne (where the word Colonia is still apparent today), but did not make a habit of it. Generally such colonies were places where army veterans settled and slowly a new town grew up. So I don't think every Roman site outside of Italy can be considered a colony - probably only a few would qualify. Some in North Africa (Algeria, Tunisia) come to mind.

I still am not sure about which ones are counted and which are not but Dougga in Tunisia would certainly qualify I think.

Also Carthage became a colony and the majority of ruins that remain are from the Roman period.
I am also not sure if it is excluded or not but there is also El Jem but all that remains is the ampitheatre

Would Troy count as the final incarnation Troy IX was a Roman trading post.