Talk:Royal College, Colombo

I have just reverted

I've just reverted here. Bundled among the other stuff, Cossde demoted the college name section once more. There is much sense in having the section at the top of the article rather than buried further down, and several people have mentioned this. Ideally, it would be in the lead but this is clearly impractical on this occasion. Effectively, Cossde's edit went against the opinion of those several people. If it needs further discussion then so be it but, please, coming off a block and then resuming the battle is not a great way to deal with things. The very fact that you were blocked should have been an indication that discuss-before-change should apply. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In such a case why did you revert all edits, excluding the college name section? Cossde (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Because I am becoming increasingly unsure of your motives here. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. You hid the name section move with a bland edit summary and, for example, there is actually nothing wrong with WP article copy/pastes provided that they are attributed, relevant and not overly detailed when put in context. You know very well that you should not conduct a content dispute by edit summary and if in doubt - as you surely should have been given how the naming row has spread across umpteen articles - then you should have erred on the side of caution and discussed first. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Given these facts may I ask why didn't you revert User:RajaPaiya's edits which went on the same lines ? Cossde (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

How was moving the section up - which has some support in threads above - "along the same lines" as burying it, which had no support? - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, Ill start over more simply for the benefit of others here. First how about removing the college name section completely and moving its contents directly to the header as you may say "which has some support in threads above" as follows;

" Royal College (also known as Royal College, College 7) is a selective entry school in Colombo, Sri Lanka. "

Note here that the name Colombo Royal College was not brought in as the ref use for it Royal Class of '80 fetes past teachers states and I quote "The students of Colombo, Royal College Class of '80 (RCC - 80) felicitated a group of Royal College teachers of their time from 1968 to 1980, at a special ceremony held at the College Hall recently. " there is no reference here to a Colombo Royal College ! The part "The school is referred as Royal College in Sri Lanka or simply as "Royal"" is a repeat from the lead. And if you look at the references use for the part "current students of Royal are called "Colombo Royalists" the second ref's title is "Royalist Ramith Rambukwella, Observer-Mobitel ....." and the content "Royal College captain and another Royalist could well become the winner of this prestigious award on Monday" from the first states that current students of this college are referred to as Royalist. Since there is a section on Royal_College,_Colombo#Old_Royalists then there is no reason to repeat this information that " current students of Royal are called "Royalists" ". Cossde (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Erm, your proposal seems almost deliberately to ignore all of the prior discussions concerning the name and take things back to how you want them with your preferred argument. And, by the way, since lead sections summarise articles it is certainly should be the case that information presented in those sections is repeated in the article body. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree, [1] has suggested the very same thing as I have done in my first step. Cossde (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you do not agree with WP:LEAD then you'll need to discuss that elsewhere. For the rest, we'll see what others think. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a serious miscommunication here ! I do agree with WP:LEAD ! What I was saying was that moving the other college names from the section to the lead was based on a comment given here by Obi2canibe. This is however apart from his statement theat RS DN, SO does not " verify that its students are known as Colombo Royalists" instead they creates ambiguity as Students from Royal College Colombo are referred to as both Royalist and Colombo Royalist. One even has its title as "Royalist Ramith Rambukwella, Observer-Mobitel ....." Cossde (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I, too, have said that moving to the opening sentence would be the normal thing to do and that your creation of a separate section was unusual. However, you would have to ensure that you include all of the names and they would all have to be bolded. We do not usually require citations in lead sections because the content is usually referenced in the article body, but I can see why this one might be a reasonable exception to the rule. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I also believe that all of the names which we can verify as being used in a sizable minority of sources should be included in the lead sentence, all bolded. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There are two names in the names section Royal College, Colombo 7 and Colombo Royal College. I added a ref for the first but the ref in second does not have any reference to a Colombo Royal College. Cossde (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Could I carryout this modification ? Cossde (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

We are approaching consensus on this issue. All editors other than Cossde support the inclusion of the school's other names in the lead sentence as long as they are supported by RS. Therefore I propose the lead be:

"Royal College (also known as Colombo Royal College, Royal College Colombo, Royal College, Colombo 7 or simply as Royal) is a selective entry boys' school in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Founded by chaplain Joseph Marsh in 1835 as a private school, it became the country's first government-run secondary boy's school in January 1836.

Often referred to as the Eton of Sri Lanka, Royal College is considered to be the leading public school in Sri Lanka. The school was founded in the British public school tradition and was one of the first schools to be designated as a national school by the Sri Lankan government. As a national school it is funded by the central government as opposed to the provincial council providing both primary and secondary education. The school was selected as "one of best innovative colleges" in the world by Microsoft in 2009.

Royal College's students are known as Royalists or Colombo Royalists. Former students are known as Old Royalists. The school has produced many distinguished alumni, among whom are presidents of two countries, a sultan, and three prime ministers."

The Royal College, Colombo#College name section can then be removed.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a start, I find this both confusing and ambiguity. Might I suggest;

"Royal College (also known as Colombo Royal College, Royal College, Colombo 7) is a selective entry boys' school in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Started by Joseph Marsh in 1835 as a private school, it was established as the first government school by Sir Robert Wilmot-Horton in January 1836. Officially known as Royal College Colombo since 1881 and is often referred to simply as Royal.

Often referred to as the Eton of Sri Lanka, Royal College is considered to be the leading public school in Sri Lanka. The school was founded in the British public school tradition and was one of the first schools to be designated as a national school by the Sri Lankan government. As a national school it is funded by the central government as opposed to the provincial council providing both primary and secondary education. The school was selected as "one of best innovative colleges" in the world by Microsoft in 2009.

The school has produced many distinguished alumni, known as Old Royalists among whom are presidents of two countries, a sultan, and three prime ministers."

Cossde (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Are either of you actually paying any attention to WP:LEAD here? You don't seem to be doing. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sitush - WP:LEAD states "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". Isn't this what's being proposed?

Cossde - your suggestion omits the reference to Royalists and Colombo Royalists. There is no excuse for excluding referenced material. Ambiguity/confusion isn't relevant - if it can be referenced it should be included. Also, the two references you have provided to show that the school is known "Officially known as Royal College Colombo" do not verify that fact.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Obi2canibe, the references provided by you only refer to students of Royal College Colombo as Colombo Royalists only in context when referred to with students from another school. Ambiguity is relevant as this information is to be included in the header where accuracy is important. Therefore could you please provide tertiary sources per WP:TERTIARY since in this case both "secondary sources contradict each other". As for your request for prof for stating "Officially known as Royal College Colombo" please refer to [2]. Cossde (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Cossde, don't you find it in the least bit ironic that you asked Obi2canibe for tertiary sources, and then presented a WP:PRIMARY source on your own behalf? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, my request for tertiary sources was due to the ambiguity of his secondary sources. I do admit I forgot that it was a primary source since it now resides in the University of Colombo.Cossde (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:TERTIARY would only apply where secondary sources contradict each other and we were proposing to include one point of view or say that one point of view is better than others. This not the case here. We are proposing to include all views (i.e. all names) and not give undue weight to any particular view. Qwyrxian is quite right, why must I provide tertiary sources when you have not have provided a single tertiary source? Is it one rule for Cossde and another rule for everyone else? And (I'm sensing deja vu here) a stone laid a century ago does note verify that the school is known "Officially known as Royal College Colombo". Please come up with a plausible excuse to get your own way.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As requested by Obi2canibe; The articles provided by you (Obi2canibe) contradict your point of view that the students are called "Colombo Royalists", in other words they contradict them selves. Therefore it is unclear if there only referred to as such in these article and only these articles alone ! As per WP:BURDEN it is your burden of evidence. Just as it's my burden to prove that Royal College Colombo is the official name as mentioned (without contradiction) in the books The History of Royal College by S.S. Perera and History of Royal College – 1985-2010 by M.L Perera (which could be considered a published secondary source). Cossde (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Where does it state that sources which contradict themselves are not admissible? WP:TERTIARY (which doesn't apply here) only mentions sources contradicting each other. And where exactly in those two books does it explicitly state that the school is known "Officially known as Royal College Colombo"? Next.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"Where does it state that sources which contradict themselves are not admissible?".... come on ! I think you should read a bit about WP:COMMONSENSE. Cossde (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't understand--how can a source contradict itself? Are you calling the newspaper as a whole a source? If so, that is an error, because newspapers are collections of sources--multiple individual articles written by individual authors with one (often changing) editorial team. Many newspapers allow their authors some degree of freedom on style of writing, and that may be why a single newspaper contains multiple different names. This is not "self-contradiction". Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. In this case I am referring to the articles provided. Cossde (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Cossde is referring to the fact the given sources refer to the pupils as Royalists in one place and Colombo Royalists in another place. It is the same as a source referring to the US president as Obama in one place and Barack Obama. Only a pedant would say the source is contradicting itself. Cossde - you haven't answered my question re the school is known "Officially known as Royal College Colombo"?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

In such case it would only be a pedant who wants to list all the names of a school in every variation and form as well as add Colombo Royalists just because it appeared in only two articles. Cossde (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Were those articles from reliable sources? If they were - and they do appear to be - then they probably meet our criteria for including the statement. However, I can see a potentially valid argument that if a source first refers to, for example, "Eton College" and thereafter refers to it as "Eton" throughout then it might be considered a journalistic device rather than a generally recognised alternate name. But, then again, that is probably a poor example because Eton College is in fact more commonly known as Eton! A better example would be a journalist first referring to "Manchester United" and thereafter using the "United" short form. - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

In that sense its correct, but here its the other way around. Its like first referring to "Etonians" and then using "Berkshire Etonians". And this is the case in both these articles. Therefor I dont think at we could conclude that "Colombo Royalist" is a generally recognized alternate name here. Cossde (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like an old record, it doesn't matter if it's "generally recognized" or not, if it can be referenced it must be included. WP:V says "When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight.". It doesn't say when reliable sources disagree we should only include one view and exclude all others.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary you seem to find novel ways of interpenetrating WP to suit your theories. Unfortunately WP:V states "When reliable sources disagree", however in this case the source contradicts it's self, in both the sources not just one. That is why a tertiary source was requested, since WP:BURDEN states "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and in this case the provided sources does not per WP:BURDEN "clearly support the material as presented in the article". Cossde (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Since no tertiary source as been provided to claim that students known as "Colombo Royalist" in over four weeks. This entry is removed from the article. Cossde (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, Wikipedia isn't your personal project. You cannot simply make demand of other editors and do as you please. WP:TERTIARY does not apply.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

obi2canibe is correct here. Cossde, you're simply not understanding how wP:RS works, nor are you understanding the different levels of sourcing. You're acting like a newspaper is a single source, when it is not; each article is a separate source. We certainly look at the newspaper overall when making judgments about reliability, notability, etc., but you can't say "two different authors in this newspaper used different terms, therefore the source is unreliable and the claim is wrong." Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I don't question the RS nature of the two sources. However WP:NEWSORG clearly states that "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.". As this discussion as indicated these two articles use different terminology that seems to confuse and contradict each them selves. What the articles state is something like starting to refer to pupils of Eton College as Etonians at the headlines and the start of the article and then later refer to them as Berkshire Etonians; which is both confusing and beyond commonsense. I clearly stated that per WP:BURDEN a sources must be provided to "clearly support the material as presented in the article". During the month that past Obi2canibe hasn't submitted even an additional secondary source to prove this matter. If the term "Colombo Royalists" is common as Obi2canibe claims to be then there should be ample articles wouldn't they ? Why hasn't Obi2canibe produced such secondary sources or even a primary source which is more clearer than this ?

Furthermore, my edits which were done in good faith based on the suggestions given by Obi2canibe on the lead has too been revered. Therefore is it the objective of Obi2canibe to keep this article in this poor state indefinitely ? and Qwyrxian do you wish the same ? Or are you genuinely interested in helping me to sort this matter out ? If so please let us know what your suggestions are about the lead. Cossde (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Cossdes private property. More and more legal Royal College web pages in Sri Lanka are coming soon. You feel small when your college is called Colombo Royal College. Your false claims, domination will be zeroed(217.212.225.107 (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)).

Please be decent enough to sing your posts. Cossde (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG states that each case must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In this case, Qwyrxian, Sitush and myself belief there is enough RS to include "Colombo Royalist" in this article. Only you don't. WP:BURDEN states that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I have provided two inline citations as evidence. Again, Qwyrxian, Sitush and myself belief this is enough. Only you don't. Take Sitush's advice, let this go.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Cossde, I think that this has gone on long enough now. You are changing stuff without consensus and you are not advancing your position at all, merely becoming more and more of an obscurantist wikilawyer. If you revert again without getting consensus first then I think it is time that you are reported for disruptive editing. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, fine I shall stop changing. Could you please clearly state if these two articles are clear enough for this content be listed ? As I see it as per WP:NEWSORG, these two articles are unclear and ambiguous therefore unfit for use as references in this matter. As you mention earlier in this discussion "a journalist first referring to "Manchester United" and thereafter using the "United" short form" as a journalistic device rather than a generally recognised alternate name; which is the same in this case! Both articles refer to students of Royal College Colombo as "Royalists" and thereafter to differentiate between students of Royal College Colombo and Panadura Royal College by naming them as "Colombo Royalists" and "Panadura Royalists". This as you said is a journalistic device of sorts or a term used to differentiate, rather than an actual generally recognised alternate name ! Therefore as an encyclopedic article we maybe stating false information here. That is why I simply asked for other sources that could clearly establish that the term "Colombo Royalists" is in fact a generally recognised alternate name. So far Obi2canibe has failed to do so as it is his/her responsibility to provide citations which must "clearly support the material" do so per WP:BURDEN. Therefore I challenge Obi2canibe to clearly prove that the term "Colombo Royalists" is a generally recognised alternate name! If such can not be proven let us remove it. Cossde (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

I'm assessing this article following a request at WP:WPSCH/A#R, and following review I have decided to leave it at the existing rating of C / Top. Thee article is well built enough to justify C-class, but has enough issues for it not to meet WP:BCLASS at this time. My suggestions are as follows:

• Overall: A lot of content with mixed quality; I think the article needs some re-organization to comply better with the standard layout for school articles - see WP:WPSCH/AG#S, although there will be natural variations on a school-by-school basis.
• Lead: Needs to be longer and better summarize the article - see WP:LEAD.
• Overview: Shouldn't be neccasery as overviewing the article is a function of the lead. A lot of this might be better in a campus section.
• History: Well developed but the paragraphs need to be longer with a better flow if possible - for a school of this age such a section should also be a lot bigger; editors should if possible consult with books and other historical sources to better develop it. There is also a lot of overuse of bold here - see MOS:BOLD.
• Current status: Should be split into a campus and academics/curriculum section.
• College tradition: If this is going to have its own section; it needs beefing up. Is a separate article for the school song really neccasery? Just because it survived AfD doesn't mean a merge should be ruled out. There is very little content in the sub-article and the lyrics should be not on Wikipedia anyway as an encyclopedia does not host primary source material - put them on Wikisource if their public domain and link to them from this article or the song article.
• Houses: A little more information on how the houses operate would be good - the current content seems a little vague. Also, use colour boxes as done in the infobox if practical.
• Awards: Seems to be a section of statistics - this should be condensed significantly and presented primarily in prose if possible.
• Sports: One of the better section, but probably needs expansion to cover other sports.
• Clubs and societies: If some clubs/societies deserve their own article, then a summary of each one should be present in this article. A list on its own isn't very useful.
• Music and drama: "The college as a strong association with the study of music" is bordering on puffery - stick to the facts. This along with clubs and societies and the sports section should perhaps be merged into one large extra-curricular activities section.
• Expeditions: Too small to justify a section. This needs expansion and/or merging into an extra-curricular activities section.
• School magazines: A well sourced section, but what does "prominent personalities" mean? Could also be part of a extra-curricular activities section.
• Cadet Contingent: Again too much bold, and perhaps should be part of history.
• Principals and head masters: Sub-article has no sources which is unacceptable per WP:BLP.
• Prefects: Maybe better in prose and a picture of the uniform (preferably without a pupil in it) would be great. This could also possibly be merged into the traditions section.
• Old Royalists: Titling it "notable alumni" may be less confusing to readers even if it is boring, particularity when they see the section title in the table of contents before seeing the section itself. Otherwise good summary although it should be noted that this section should be sourced independently of the sub-article. On the side note, with the multiple references to uniform, a section on uniform may be justified.
• War Memorial: Should be part of a campus section.
• Royal College Union: Should probably be either fully integrated into a notable alumni section or should be added as a sub-section - having it several sections away doesn't make sense and makes the article flow when read from top to bottom jumpy. Current sub-article does not pass WP:N and seems to be dominated by directory style information - a merge may be a good idea.
• Gallery: Seems to be a miscellaneous gallery added to the end of the article - which goes against WP:GALLERIES - Wikipedia is not an image repository. I would suggest creating a gallery on Commons at commons:Royal College, Colombo and linking it from the article using {{Commons}} (link to gallery only) or {{Commons and category}} (link to category and gallery).
• Royal and other schools: There is a tendency for people to invent rivalries between schools, so it is particularity important that rivalries, implied or stated, are sourced - see WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI. This should perhaps be part of a campus section or the existing history section.
• In popular culture and Notable incidents: The format does make these appear to be trivia sections with another name. Both these section, certainly the latter, could be put in history.
• Lineage: I don't fully understand this section, so neither will many other readers. Should this perhaps be in the history section with a clear description?
• See also: Too long; don't state links which are in the article text and try to remove any marginally relevant ones.
• Bibliography: There are many different reference systems available to use - see WP:CITE, but everything disputable should be backed by inline citations, particularly in an article of this length, and failure to do this will cause problems above C-class.
• References: Good to see lots of these but they seem to be a bit of a mess - try and use citation templates with as many fields filled in as possible.
• External links and sources: The external links section is for external links of possible interest to readers, not for sourcing, so the section title should just be "External links" (always plural). The number of links need to be significantly cut down on the whole - per WP:EL. Only one link is guaranteed inclusion and that is a link to the official school site - other links should only be there with a good reason. Link to all societies, publications e.t.c. is excessive.
• Images: Good to see a lot of images, and a lot could be potentially be moved to Commons, although there are some which I do have concerns about:
  • File:Royal College, Colombo-Logo.png: Passes WP:NFCC in the infobox of the school article but it's use is more questionable in the alumni sub-article, where its function seems to be for pure aesthetics
  • File:UoC Math Dept.jpg, File:The RC flag at the Royal-Thomian.jpg, File:Royal College Main Hall.jpg, File:RC quadrangle.jpg, File:RC Building 1.jpg, File:RC maingate.jpg, File:RC JR pav.jpg: Resolution is a little low and camera metadata has been erased; I presume this was photographed by the uploader?
  • File:Royal College, Colombo motto.jpg: Good, but to be nitpicky it should be noted that Commons' policy explicitly requires a statement that its the uploader's own work beyond the license template.
  • File:Royal-Trinity Bradby Shield.jpg: Resolution is low enough to create a red flag for me - where is this image from? There is the potential problem of the photo being a potenital derivative work of the shield.
  • File:Royal College Colombo Cadet Corps.jpg: I've changed the date to "unknown" since the date given was the date of upload which is incorrect. One obvious question though is if the date isn't specified, how can the image public domain status be backed-up? If someone has the correct date of this image, please add it in.
  • File:Junius Richard Jayewardene.jpg: While non-free images of deceased people are okay in their BLP articles, images here are purely aesthetic and so must be free; no non-free images of people in the alumni section will likely pass WP:NFCC.
  • File:John Kotelawala.jpg, File:Anagariaka.jpg, File:Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam.jpg: Again, the actual date of creation is needed.
  • File:College tie of Royal College Colombo.png: The CC-BY 3.0 license permits users of images to use them for any purpose permitted under law, including commercial use, and to make any modifications/derivative works desired. A blanket prohibition on use which may reflect badly on the school conflicts with the license and therefore means that this upload is not free content - this prohibition must be either revoked, the image kept under the WP:NFCC (will be difficult to justify), or deleted.
  • File:RCU log.JPG: May be justified in a dedicated article, but inclusion in the main article arguably fails WP:NFCC.
  • File:Navarangahla1.jpg: No camera metadata and the watermark should be removed if possible.
• I may take some of these to WP:PUF if the issues raised are not resolved. I can provide further clarification or help on request.

I think that should be more than enough suggestions for now. Feel free to drop me a note if help or further feedback is required. CT Cooper · talk 17:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

College name

The section College name, is both nonconstructive and confusing as indicated by the recent edits by User:Wo2gana. A Google search indicates;

• Key word search of "Royal College Colombo" brought 911,000 results
• Key word search of "Royal College Colombo 7" brought 447,000 results

Therefore these multiple variations that appear in local newspapers should be removed, as the name Royal College Colombo is by far the most common name and other variations are random interpretations by local newspaper authors. Cossde (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A 2 to 1 result doesn't mean we should remove the other information. In fact, a one-third share is quite substantial, and almost a guarantee that we should include the info. That being said, your google search doesn't mean what you think it means--the way that Google handles multiple terms in a search string, along with the way that it looks at mirrors, means you can't simply compare numbers--you need to actually look at sample results. Doing so is time consuming and painful; if you want to do it, you'll need to look at, say the top several hundred results from each search and then go and hand count them, throwing out duplicates and false results (like where the words are all included, but in a different order). An easier, and probably more accurate solution, is to simply go by feel: are there a substantial number of newspaper editors who use the other name? Then we should mention it in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Cossde is same as User:Wo2gana, co-editors, WP visitors καὶ τὰ ἕτερα. No extraordinary substance or a tactician but a member of this planet (assured sans any reliable references). WP has no rules reserved for User:Cossde's editing. Royal College Colombo or Colombo Royal College is extremely less (or not) mentioned in any foreign newspapers (or media though Royal prefix may have been granted in 1881) because it is located in Sri Lanka being immediate neighbors with Thurstan College and University of Colombo. Hence other names too must be included in article. Now, don't be bewildered...answer to question In which battle did Napoleon die? can be in his last battle. Long way to go, happy editing.(Wo2gana (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)).

I'm sorry Wo2gana, I cant make head of tail of what you are trying to say.

Qwyrxian, Yes I do agree. In going through the first 12 of pages of searches (key words: Royal College Colombo ) the following forms of reference to the school were found; Royal College; Royal College, Colombo; Royal College Colombo; Royal College, Colombo 7; Royal College Colombo 7. In it I was unable to find Colombo Royal College. In a similar manner I was unable to find additional sources than the one provided for the term "Colombo Royalists". Therefore I dont think that the terms "Colombo Royalists" or "Colombo Royal College" used by substantial number of newspaper editors to be mentioned here. Cossde (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't be sorry Cossde, (is it head OR tail? - unfortunately I do not have a tail). Just blank it or ignore. Interesting to watch your behavior, arguments, discussions etc. Keep going.(Wo2gana (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)).

Wo2gana, you're going to need to establish that those terms are regularly used. Just because one or two journalists used them doesn't mean we should include them in the article. This falls under WP:UNDUE. Cossde is claiming that two of those are not substantially used. Unless you can prove otherwise (and the burden falls on you, as the one wanting to include the info), they should be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Google search I did indicated 8,101,879 outcomes (Wo2gana (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)).

What are the key words you used ? Cossde (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not believable Wo2gana. Please provide the exact search strings you used. Please note, for instance, that if you search for something in google without using quotation marks, the engine will find results that are totally unrelated. So if I search for star wars, and I don't use quotation marks, I will find pages that include sentences like "The ancient Egyptians only went to war when the stars were aligned", even though I meant to only search for the movie Star Wars. Also, you need to do some basic checking and found out if those search results refer specifically to the college in Colombo, not, for example, a "Royal College" in the UK or some other country. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Since, no prof has been provided to claim that current students of Royal are called generally referred to as Colombo Royalists, said item will be removed along with "Colombo Royal College". The rest will be merged into the lead section.Cossde (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I see you have used this as a smokescreen to remove all references to the school being known by other names. This has been discussed many times and there is no consensus for removal of this referenced information.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect Obi2canibe, as indicated in the above discussions no tentative proof has been established to prove that these are names are common names or if there are only individual occurrences. My removal was done after no one came forward to verify that these names are commonly used with stats for over a month. And I waited a day after posting that these are to be-removed due to lack of proof to support said claims before actually removing them. If you want to re-add these names, pls proved stats as the burden falls on you.Cossde (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Appalling behaviour. This has been discussed at length on several occasions, most notably at Talk:Royal College, Colombo#I have just reverted. In this discussion everyone else except you accepted that other names should be included. You clearly disagreed and have been biding your time, hoping that other editors will lose interest. And now you have removed all reference to the school being called by other names in a very underhand way. You know very well that WP:COMMONNAME only applies to the name of the article. No one is suggesting that this article be re-named. If you continue to go against the consensus, a topic ban would be the only solution for your behaviour.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Obi2canibe, pls read the above discussion ! Cossde (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Cossde, is Obi2canibe's charge correct? Did you remove all references to other names? I'm going to do something odd now: I'm not going to check the article. If you have removed all of the references to other names, I suggest you self-revert. If you have not, then I must be misunderstanding you or Obi2canibe. There is ample evidence that there is more than one name. There is no requirement that names be used "equally", only that they be used beyond a fringe position. If there are a relevant number of sources that use the other names, we must include them. Period. If you have removed them, and you refuse to self-revert now, I will block you. Am I too WP:INVOLVED for such an action? I don't know. But you've been trying, for a long time, to push a specific POV w.r.t. to this article that you have never substantiated in a way compatible with our policies. Yes, your "opponents" have also been ignoring policy (to the point of sockpuppetry and ridiculous edit warring), but that does not give you license to decide that a 1/3 ratio is somehow so insubstantial as to not warrant inclusion. So I'm telling you, point blank: do the sources support, unamibiguously, one and only one name? Unambiguously would be upwards of 90%, or would involve other qualifications such that one name was overwhelmingly the name normally used and all other names were far far less important. If it is not that unambiguous, please ensure the other names are in the article, or face a block. This has gone on for long enough. 14:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Cossde has removed all reference to Colombo Royal College, Colombo Royalists, Colombo Royal and Royal Colombo. He has removed eleven reliable sources which backed up these terms. And he has removed the College name section despite agreeing to a separate section back in September 2012. In October 2012 his attempt to move the College name section to the end of the article was the catalyst for the Talk:Royal College, Colombo#I have just reverted discussion. Now he has gone one step further and removed the section completely!--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Obi2canibe, I have self revert the changes pertaining to this discussion. However I have kept in-place the other changes which have been made after it (which had also been removed by Obi2canibe earlier). I removed several names and moved others to the lead (without refs.. my mistake). Items in question as as follows;

• Royal
• Royal College, Colombo 7
• Colombo Royal College
• Colombo Royal
• Royal Colombo
• Colombo Royalists

As I mentioned before;

• Key word search of "Royal College Colombo" brought 911,000 results
• Key word search of "Royal College Colombo 7" brought 447,000 results

Apart from the provided refs I could find any common usage. Could you please indicate such usage. Cossde (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Common? How many times do you have to be told that we are not trying to fathom out this school's common name. We are trying to follow Wikipedia's core content policy, specifically Wikipedia:Verifiability. Verifiability does not in itself guarantee inclusion, consensus does. The consensus in the previous discussions was that this content should be included. The only editor who objected was you. You are refusing to accept this consensus and repeating the same arguments over and over again to get your way.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

We need to draw a balance. If a name is mentioned only once, then we should not mention it--that falls under WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE. But if a name is used rarely but measurably, then we should probably mention it. As you said, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion; just because we can verify that a name exists, does not mean we should include it. Consensus can't override other policies, and in this case [[WP:NPOV] (of which WP:UNDUE is a part) says we can't overemphasize something more than it is emphasized in the real world...and that, if something is almost never expressed in the real world, we should not mention it at all. Obi2canibe, we need some searching/results from you as well. Please provide us with which other names you believe should be included, along with some idea of how often they are used. We don't need actual numbers, but if you said something like "this newspaper always seems to use this name", that would help. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like Colombo Royal College and Colombo Royalists re-instated. I'm not bothered about Colombo Royal and Royal Colombo which were added by the sock.

You won't find any source which always uses a single name exclusively. The names are so interchangeable that everybody knows what they are referring to, a bit like "University of Oxford", "Oxford University", "Oxford". All I can show is that some of the names removed by Cossde are used by a variety of sources:

• Colombo Royal College - Daily Mirror 1, Daily Mirror 2, Sunday Times, Island 1, Island 2, Island 3, Daily News 1, Daily News 2, Daily News 3, Daily News 4, Daily News 5, Sunday Observer, Nation, NPC, News.lk, SLBC, Hiru News, Arnold Wright, John Ferguson, UK Parliament, Army, Navy.
• Colombo Royalists - Sunday Observer, Daily News.

There are also various other sources who use these two terms but I'm not sure if they are RS e.g. Kandy News, ITPRO, Maldives Culture, LankaSri, MoraSpirit.

For the record, the actual Google search results are:

• Royal College Colombo - 161,000
• Colombo Royal College - 82,200

--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Obi2canibe's reply in this case is acceptable with a single exception. Due to the presentation of finding, "Colombo Royal College" seems to be used in news articles even though it is inaccurate. Therefore as Qwyrxian, stated there seems to be statistical evidence to include it here.

That said, the only item I have to object to is "Colombo Royalists" since only two articles have been presented and therefore can not be considered as commonly used. As such it shouldn't be included here.

For the record non of these need to be reinstated as these are already in the article. Only the inappropriate should be removed.

Finally, as stated by Obi2canibe, in the case of University of Oxford, the informal reference "Oxford University or simply Oxford" has been added to its lead as well as its abbreviated "Oxon.". On similar terms how can we proceed with this article and which form of lead should we have? Cossde (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying Colombo Royal College should be included in the lead? Back in October everybody else agreed that we should include the other names in the lead. You were the only fly in the ointment.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said, its inaccurate ! I said that then, I say that now. However, since you have shown that statistically that the college is referred to as such we can add it according to Qwyrxian. Unfortunately or fortunately, we can list the names "Royal College", "Royal College Colombo", "Royal College, Colombo", "Royal College, Colombo 7", "Colombo Royal College" and "Royal" in the lead. I do like to know that Qwyrxian has to say ? Cossde (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You should know by now that Wikipedia doesn't deal with the truth or accuracy, it deals with verifiability. So, we go back to what was suggested on 6 October 2012. Back then Qwyrxian agreed the other names being included in the lead sentence (as did Sitush). It's a shame it's taken you all this time to agree with everyone else. Don't change your mind again!--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Obi2canibe, I am truly sad to hear you say "You should know by now that Wikipedia doesn't deal with the truth or accuracy, it deals with verifiability", I strongly believe that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia hence "truth or accuracy" is supreme. Fine call me naive for trying to maintain "truth or accuracy" in Wikipedia I am not ashamed of it.

Obi2canibe, did you read my comment clearly ! I agreed to the inclusion of "Colombo Royal College" but NOT "Colombo Royalist" since you have failed to statistically it is used more than a few times (two times in this case). Therefore I CAN NOT agree to the your proposed lead of 6 October 2012. And if you see even in it I have agreed to include "Colombo Royal College" but refused to agree to include "Colombo Royalist"! Cossde (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:V and WP:NOTTRUTH. With this edit you removed any reference to Colombo Royal College. You have now only agreed to include it after I protested.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

My agreement on keeping Colombo Royal College goes back to October 6, 2012 as you can see here. Yet even since then you are yet to provide statistical evidence to prove that "Colombo Royalists" is a used often even though the burden of evidence lies with you. Cossde (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been avoiding this, because it's such a weird debate, and I don't udnerstand why it's so important. By now, I'm totally, confused. Could each of you please propose exactly what you want the lead to say with reference to the naming issue? Then we can see how close we are. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Royal College (also known as Colombo Royal College, Royal College Colombo, Royal College, Colombo 7 or simply as Royal) is a selective entry boys' school in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Founded by chaplain Joseph Marsh in 1835 as a private school, it became the country's first government-run secondary boy's school in January 1836.

Often referred to as the Eton of Sri Lanka, Royal College is considered to be the leading public school in Sri Lanka. The school was founded in the British public school tradition and was one of the first schools to be designated as a national school by the Sri Lankan government. As a national school it is funded by the central government as opposed to the provincial council providing both primary and secondary education. The school was selected as "one of best innovative colleges" in the world by Microsoft in 2009.

Royal College's students are known as Royalists whilst former students are known as Old Royalists. The school has produced many distinguished alumni, among whom are presidents of two countries, a sultan, and three prime ministers."

--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The above lead is acceptable with several minor changes and expansions the lead as follows;

"Royal College (also referred to as Royal College Colombo,, Royal College, Colombo 7, Colombo Royal College, or simply as Royal) is a selective entry boys' school located in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Started as a private school by Rev Joseph Marsh in 1835, it was established as the Colombo Academy by Sir Robert Wilmot-Horton in January 1836, the first government-run secondary school for boys in the island.

Royal College is considered to be the leading public school in Sri Lanka and is often referred to as the Eton of Sri Lanka. The school was founded in the British public school tradition having being named as the Royal College Colombo in 1881 with Royal consent from Queen Victoria and it was one of the first schools to be designated as a national school by the Sri Lankan government in the 1980's. As a national school it is funded by the government as opposed to the provincial council providing both primary and secondary education. The school was selected as "one of best innovative colleges" in the world by Microsoft in 2009.

Students of Royal College are known as Royalists whilst past pupils are known as Old Royalists. The school has produced many distinguished alumni, among whom are presidents of two countries, a sultan, and three prime ministers."

Reason for moving Royal College Colombo to the first and Colombo Royal College to the last is due to the Google search results presented by obi2canibe earlier. Cossde (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Changes applied. Cossde (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

School website

Could the two of you please explain what's going on with the websites? We have to include the one official site. Which is it? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Well technically both, since royalcollege.lk is the oldest url which has been maintained by the school in late 1990's recently updated with the current format merging inforroyal.lk. royal.sch.lk was maintained by the Royal College Prefects' Council. Both are registered under the LK domain registry at the University of Moratuwa therefore both are legitimate. He could take the royalcollege.lk as the official one is its the one that is been updated regularly. Cossde (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Irespective of age of domain or frequency it is updated royal.sch.lk says THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF ROYAL COLLEGE. Any one with bare minimum knowledge of English language can read it clearly. Hence it is most suited (Wo2gana (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)).

Which one is run by the school administration? That is the "real" official page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

royalcollege.lk is the one run by the school administration. Cossde (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wendell W Solomons

This is a comment copied over from the Reference desk. Current live link: [3] This will be the link in a week once the desk is archived: [4].184.147.136.249 (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Missing in article on Royal College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_College,_Colombo

Wendell W Solomons Researcher in strategic geopolitical, economic and social forecasting

Number of websites using articles - 102,000 https://www.google.ca/#q=+-facebook+%22wendell+w+solomons%22

Joined school in 1955 Royal College Hostel photograph Row 2: Wendell Solomons http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/rcpa01.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.166.13 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)