Talk:Presidencies and provinces of British India: Difference between revisions

::::::To be clear, he is not suggesting "an overview article" & if "most people here have supported a "[[British India]]" article", it was not a [[Wikipedia:Broad-concept article]] they had in mind - this is a sort of super-disambiguation page. I'm open to this, so long as it sticks to explaining the various senses of the term. I'm surprised btw that [[Portuguese India]] could be offered as a model for anything! [[Danish India]], on an even smaller topic, is a good deal better. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 15:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::: I think we should let {{u|No such user}} speak for himself. He mentioned that it would be an overview article and I support that too. The article will be [[British India]], not [[British India (disambiguation)]], following [[Portuguese India]] and [[Danish India]]. [[User:LearnIndology|LearnIndology]] ([[User talk:LearnIndology|talk]]) 16:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
{{od}} For starters, the sentence, "British colonial rule in India, loosely referred to as British India," is incorrect. There is no broad-sense meaning of British India that is ''geographically'' anything more than Presidencies and provinces of British India. The broad-sense connotations are not geographical; they are sociological, political, literary, and cultural. That broad-sense page outlined above cannot be called "British India." there is no precedent for that in the scholarly literature. I have already quoted and cited Hardy's book. I'm sure I can find dozens of others, all published by academic publishers. {{re|No such user}} that is a nonstarter. Sorry. That broadscale (or multiscale) page cannot be called [[British India]]. I am absolutely certain that scholarly sources do not support it. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 17:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)