Talk:British Central Africa Protectorate

Move main part to History of Malawi?

Should the first section be moved to the Malawi history page, leaving this article to be called 'postage stamps of BCA'?Rexparry sydney 02:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In general my preference has been to have these articlea be in-depth on colonial days, and leave "History of X" to be mostly post-formation-of-X, with pre-X sections as more of a synopsis connecting to articles on native kingdoms or colonies or whatever. Being wiki rather than paper means that "History of X" doesn't have to be a giant monolithic narrative. If monolithy was good, why wouldn't one move the stamp info into it, too? :-) Stan 03:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved the stamp discussion to Postage stamps and postal history of British Central Africa, leaving this as a general history article. Ecphora (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Protectorate

This present entry is very brief. I propose to expand it by introducing a new heading on the Origin of the Protectorate containing:

1. More detail about the creation of the protectorate.

2. The establishment of its borders with German and Portuguese territories.

3. The colonial Land settlement

Shscoulsdon (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have managed the first and second points above, but the third is being more of a problem.

Shscoulsdon (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The articles British Central Africa Protectorate and Nyasaland both indicate that they are different names for the same thing: a British protectorate which was renamed in 1907. There appears to be little justification for having separate articles. As Nyasaland existed for longer and is the more memorable name I favour this for the name of a merged article. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally prefer two separate articles. It seems to me less confusing and it is easy to switch from one to the other. Very long articles on historical subjects can be off-putting. Kanjuzi (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering it has been over a year since the proposed merge, I'm going to propose we either resolve this here and now, or remove the tag accordingly. --Katangais (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the proposal by removing the merge proposal hatnones. I have added hatnotes referring each article to the other. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)