Aethiopia is an exceedingly vague and broad geographic region in Graeco-Roman literature which generally refers to any area in the Sahara or Sub-Saharan regions of Africa. That said, it was also occasionally used to refer to any area where dark skinned peoples, and specifically dark Africans, came from.

For example, the modern day nations of Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Niger, Mali, Chad, the area known as the Westerm Sahara, and parts of southern Mauretania, Libya and most broadly the Sahel as a whole, might be considered "Aethiopia".

Within these areas various kingdoms and nations were distinguished from each other by Graeco-Roman authors but at the time the Iliad was composed, knowledge of the area would have been much more limited, and Archaic/Classical Greek contact with the African contact would have extended to a much smaller radius than that of the Hellenistic and Roman periods which I am familiar with.

The modern nation of Ethiopia is in the Horn of Africa, an area which was referred to as "Aethiopia", but the state takes its name from the ancient Greek term, not the other way around.

On some points, ancient Greek accounts are correct in describing kingdoms and cities or pastoral nomads in "Aethiopia", and other archaeological evidence both supports their accounts and is compared to them. On the other, we have accounts like Herodotus' description of a race of men with no heads and faces in their chests, or men who live 120 years and are the handsomest people on Earth. Of course, this is the same Herodotus who describes golden ants in India, and flying snakes.

Some Roman authors describe far regions like Lake Chad and East Africa with remarkable clarity, but others assure us that the Berbers of the Fezzan were tent-dwelling nomads although even in the 21st Century we find the ruins of their cities.

Much of the reason the articles seem contradictory and unclear, is because the ancient Greek understanding of the world outside of the Mediterranean was contradictory and unclear. Although this improved with time, Graeco-Roman human geography was always bit dodgy, hence all of the confusion over the "Celts" who inhabited mainland Europe and Britain but were also not all one people.

Also mention of a man named Aethiops being the etymological origin in of the term in the same way Rome is named for Romulus as opposed to the "burnt face" theory.

This is not from a Greek author, it is attributed to Pliny who was writing in the Roman Imperial period. "Aethiops son of Vulcan" is not real because the gods and demigods of Roman mythology did not exist, which includes the god Vulcan (equated with the Greek Hephaestus). However ancient etymologies which name locations after mythological figures are abundant, for instance the idea that the Nile is named after a figure called Nilus. Similarly, the story of a demi-god named Romulus founding Rome after being suckled by a wolf is considered mythological, although aspects of the Roman foundation myths may contain allegorical truths. In general, origin stories involving the gods and demi-gods directly are usually taken lightly by modern scholars and were viewed with skepticism even in Antiquity.

Hopefully this helps some and if you have any follow up questions feel free to ask!

You might enjoy this answer of mine on Roman contact with Sub-Saharan Africa.