Talk:British Ceylon

Latest comment: 3 months ago by Fayenatic london in topic Merge proposal

Merge proposal edit

WP:NOPAGE seems does not enough reliable sources for British Ceylon period, similar as comparison with "British Ceylon" article. Surveyor Mount (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

    Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: Undisscussed and proposed by a blocked users. They are two different articles one is about the state that existed from (1815–1948), British Ceylon, and the other, British Ceylon period, is about a historical period of Sri Lanka that spanned the same time. Both are sourced with many sources --Blackknight12 (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support merge: having carried out the unopposed (for 8 months) merge proposal, which has just been reversed, I saw heavy overlap. The British Ceylon period seeems to be an article by historians for historians, and my view is that this shouldn't be separate from the British Ceylon#History section; to split the content is unwarranted given the that the combined length is well below page size limit recommendations. So, the formal reasons for the merge would be overlap and context. Klbrain (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support merge. The British Ceylon period may be said to have started in 1802 with British settlements displacing other European control over the coastlands, whereas British Ceylon including control over the interior began with military victory over the Kingdom of Kandy in 1815; but that amounts to a relatively minor difference in scope. Other articles about colonies will cover a colonisation period where the foreign power may likewise have taken some years to become established. I see no benefit in maintaining two articles with such closely overlapping scope. – Fayenatic London 22:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply