Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main Talk Departments Members Notice board Vital articles Recognized
content
New articles To do Popular pages Assessment
and FAQs

Sri Lankan actors/actresses[edit]

I noticed that we have very small area of articles regarding actors and actresses of Sri Lanka. Even though some have been made, they not up to the standards. Therefore they will be deleted soon due to Wikipedia guidelines. So if anyone can improve those articles and make new articles is a good attempt. Cheers. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • @Gihan Jayaweera: I understand your point and I also noticed that we are not having sufficient quality articles about Sri Lankan actors, film directors and singers. I have recently created about a popular actress Deepani Silva who was also caught for an accident in Bandaragama on 28 May 2018. So I would like to help in creating film biographies like this. Abishe (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Abishe, just make sure that any article you create addresses the criteria under WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. This means providing evidence that the subject has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 Sri Lanka floods[edit]

I have created the article on the recent flood, 2018 Sri Lanka floods which started around 19 May, 2018 and please help to expand the article. Abishe (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Janindu Mahesh[edit]

Hi, please note that there is persistent vandalism to promote Janindu Mahesh or Janindu Mahesh Chandresekara including hijacking Sri Lankan singer articles and adding fake credits to many Sri Lankan film articles. The vandal seems to be the person himself and is not notable so please revert any edits mentioning him, also he is removing real credits when he does this. One editor and 2 sockpuppets blocked so far, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  • In fact, at last count the initial user, Divyanka Babu, has used 15 confirmed sockpuppets, 1 unconfirmed and 2 unconfirmed IPs. Dan arndt (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background[edit]

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Establishing Guidelines for Political Articles Conversation[edit]

This is an open discussion. Feel free to discuss the issues below:

Honorific Styling of Politicians (The Honourable, Honourable, Hon.)[edit]

Different editors have been using their own styles on political articles of Sri Lanka and it is making things inconsistent. I would like us to establish some guidelines on this amongst us so we can be consistent. User:Dan arndt keeps using Hon., user User:Obi2canibe keeps using Honourable while I use The Honourable since it is more widely used. I hope I am not missing anything on this? - LionCountry25 (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

A good point. I've been meaning to ask this same question after seeing Dan's edits. The British politicians' pages all seem to have "The Honourable", and since our system is based off of theirs, I think we'd need a specific reason as to why changing it to "Hon." is needed.
I'd also like to point out we need action on the section below. - ක - (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
We do not have to follow the British system. The Sri Lankan Parliament's directory of members uses "Hon." but the Hansard uses "The Hon.". There is no right or wrong answer and there are no rules against abbreviating honorifics in the infobox. Given that Dan has already brought some consistency by changing most references to "Hon." why do we want waste time changing them to something else. Our time could be better spent on other things.
On a related note, I note that LionCountry25 has started removing the "MP" honorific from infoboxes of former MPs (e.g [1]). Again, there are no rules on this. Wikipedia is meant to give historic information, we do not contemporise information to the present day. If we did, we would have to remove honorifics from all deceased biographies.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Essentially I’ve been working on creating articles on early Ceylonese politicians I noticed that there were inconsistencies in respect to the use of honourifics across all of the country’s articles on politicians. After examining MOS:HON, I identified a number of issues, firstly an honourific is not part of an individual’s name and shouldn’t be listed as such, which is why there is a specific heading for such, ‘honorific_prefix’. Which is why it is frustrating when LionCountry25 keeps on reverting edits to include the title Sir as part of an individual’s name, when it is contrary to WP guidelines. Secondly there are no guidelines for the use of ‘The Honourable’, ‘Honourable’ or ‘Hon.’. In fact the guidelines for British politicians is to not include that term of honourific at all in their title. Which brings us back to Sri Lankan politicians - where there is no consistency - as a result I’ve been working through all the articles to establish a consistency. I’d have to conclude with Obi2canibe there are other more important tasks but I’m prepared to keep working on this one for the time being. Dan arndt (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Since Sri Lanka follows the British Westminster system, we have adopted British style of honorifics. As such the practice is clear serving Member of Parliament with have the honorific The Honourable with Hon. as shorten form and post nominal letters MP after their name. If they die in officer or leave parliament, they continue to use the honorific, yet stop using the post nominal letters MP. We can continue this practice for articles in in Wikipeida too. Cossde (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The explanation provided in the description on honourifics states “In the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, as in other lower houses of Parliament and other legislatures, members refer to each other as honourable members etc. out of courtesy, but they are not entitled to the style in writing.“ Given the directories published by Parliament of Sri Lanka describe politician’s title as Hon. all I’ve done is reflected this in the politicians articles to ensure consistency. Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with - ක - and Cossde. Since we follow the British system we should follow their example and use the full title The Honourable as it is more respectable and it would be consistent with articles in UK and other commonwealth countries. Yes Obi2canibe and Dan arndt I do agree we don't have to follow the styles of UK and we all agree we have to keep things consistent, and yes we are spending way too much time in this topic for not a great reason. But we should establish this so we don't do this anymore. Dan arndt like I mentioned before I use Sir in front of names because it is been used in UK articles and they have consistently used it. But Dan arndt I really don't understand why you have to give an alternative name, the only possible explanation is that it is what you prefer. Obi2canibe yes, I did remove the suffix of few MPs because yet again due to the same reason as they do in UK articles. Yes there is no guidline, but UK articles have consistently done that to all recent politicians. In those articles they have a section called Styles of address where they have put the styles of the politician from birth to death. I just want to establish a style that we can all follow - LionCountry25 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Clearly honourifics are not part of an individual’s name - title’s like Sir, Dr. and Prof. are not included as part of an individual’s name, which is why the guidelines outline they aren’t to be used as part of an individual’s name. Arguing just because doesn’t make it correct. Dan arndt (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The Hansard style was not known to me, which is why I asked if there was a specific reason why the honorific was being changed. I don't feel strongly about this either way, but my feeling is we should just stick to 'The Honourable'. 'Hon.' is an abbreviation of it anyway, and I don't think it's terribly important to be consistent with the Hansard.
As for the postnominals, I think 'MP' should be removed from the pages of deceased politicians. They're not entitled to its use, and if we're going to be sticklers for one rule (consistency with the Hansard), then we should follow other rules as well: we can't pick and choose. As Obi2canibe said, while there is no hard and fast rule about whether 'Hon.' or 'The Honourable' is correct; however, there is one about the use of 'MP', as Cossde pointed out.
On the matter of the Sir/Dr thing, I agree with what others have said here. They're not part of the name, they're a honorific title.
If I'm pushed to make a final decision, I'd say keep 'Hon.', but 'MP' needs to go.- ක - (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Dan arndt, since you brought up that point actually haven't change honourifics such as Sir, Dr. and Prof.. And on your explanation of Hon. being used on the parliamentary website of Sri Lanka, they actually do the same in UK [2], even the Australian Hansard [3]. The wikipedia users of UK chose not to i'm guessing since there is no point in providing an alternative name and it shows more respect
Furthermore what I noticed was that they only use The Honourable title to members who were only members of the cabinet in the past or present eg:Dennis Skinner - LionCountry25 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Concur with the view that MP should only be used as a honourific for a sitting member of parliament not a former MP. Happy to make the necessary changes to reflect that. Dan arndt (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Just a note to User:Jesuschristonacamel and others, I think you should get out of your head the notion that Sri Lankan politics follows a British system or think that it is based on it. It may have been after independence but it does not anymore. Sri Lanka has its own style of governance that has emerged, changed and adapted since independence. Sri Lanka is not a Westminster system it is a Semi-presidential Republic system, which was actually modelled on French governance. That does not mean we should follow either French or British customs as Sri Lanka has developed its own and we should follow that.
User:LionCountry25, respect has nothing to do with this. We, on Wikipedia, are just conveying information in a neutral way. We are not supposed to take sides. Please don't bring up respect as a reason.
As for my thoughts, I have to agree with Obi2canibe, some editors here are do not know how to be productive with their time. I agree that MP should only be used as a honorific for a sitting members of parliament and not a former MPs, that makes sense. As for the the title "The Honourable", it doesn't really matter so much, just as long as they are consistant. But if I were to choose one, it should be "The Honourable", as the "The Hon." and "Hon." are just shorthand ways of "The Honourable".
It Also seems some mass reverting and changes has broken out before we have come to a consensus here. I think it would be best if users don't start until we have a consensus here. On the other hand maybe we have a consensus on the MP discussion?--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Blackknight12: A debatable point. The only example of French influence is the addition of the President. In all other respects, this is still an adaptation of the Westminster system. The colonial influence is still heavy on Parliament and literally everything else across the State system. To pretend otherwise is just being obtuse for the sake of pushing a nationalist agenda and pointless chest-beating. If that's what this is, I am not interested in having this discussion with you. I've made my opinion clear in my last reply in this thread, and that's all there is to it. I still feel there is little point in abbreviating then linking to the page for The Honourable, but if it gets rid of the MP postnominals, I'm all for it. - ක - (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────── Like Blackknight12, I have noticed that the editor who started this discussion has started making changes unilaterally before the discussion has finished. This shows a lack of respect for other editors. Why bother starting a discussion if you intend to do as you please anyway?--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to add, when I said that there are no rules, I meant Wikipedia rules (policies and guidelines). Sri Lankan rules and customs have no bearing on how we structure content on Wikipedia.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As clearly stated by other editors above, there are no rules/guidelines as the use of the term on Wikipedia and each jurisdiction deals with them in accordance with local custom/requirements. All that I have put in place over the last few months is to ensure that each article is consistent with other similar articles - i.e. all articles on Ceylonese/Sri Lankan politicians are now consistent in their use of "Hon.", which is the way that Sri Lankan Parliament's directory of members uses. At this stage I thought the general consensus would be that we leave the current status quo until such time as there was a general agreement that a change was necessary.
It would appear that the editor who started this discussion is disrespecting everyone else by ignoring the points raised by other editors in this discussion and making unilateral changes removing honorifics such as MP , where they are sitting members on the basis that they are not cabinet members without even mentioning this intention in this discussion or making changes on the basis that that's how some other commonwealth countries deal with it. Noting that most other countries however have the same sort of inconsistencies that used to prevail here - it almost seems that that editor wants to go back to case where all the articles are treated differently dependent upon the view of the article's creator.
I thought that we had a consensus on the use of the honorific, "MP", whereby it only applies to a sitting member of parliament however it would not appear that LionCountry25 has a different view to everyone else and is making changes accordingly. As previously indicated I am prepared to go back through all the articles on former politicians and make those changes to ensure that once again we have consistency but will await everyone else's feedback first. Dan arndt (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I do apologise for the reversions, as I myself was also under the impression that we should wait till we sort this out. Unfortunately Dan arndt did not for reasons unknown and he has even reverted my reversion as I speak! I am also on the agreement that MP should only be assigned to sitting MPs. If I removed the MP form a sitting MP that was probably by accident. With regards to the Hon. in the parliamentary directory, that is how they do it in the UK [4], and Australia [5], yet the use The Honourable instead of Hon. in Wikipedia articles. I am not sure why Dan arndt hasn't seen this? Blackknight12 yes I agree we do not have to follow the UK structure as such but like - ක - pointed out it has a strong influence to date because of historical reason and it would be a good guide to follow for Sri Lankan articles. I also have my doubts about Sri Lanka being a Semi-presidential system but that's a debate for another time. Like - ක - and Blackknight12 mentioned I too am in favour of The Honourable instead of The Hon., Hon. or just Honourable. Finally I would like to mention, forget about what I said about non cabinet MP's not having a prefix. That only limits to Australian and UK articles as their websites only give it to cabinet members - LionCountry25 (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Dan arndt you might want to recheck your point on MOS:HON as another user on Winston Churchill has mentioned otherwise - LionCountry25 (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Dan arndt We are all waiting for your response!! - LionCountry25 (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn’t realise that my comments were any more important than any other editors (not certain who the ‘we’ are that you refer to or have you elected yourself as the spokesperson for everyone else here?). I was under the impression that this was a group discussion, which was why I was allowing everyone else ample opportunity to provide their feedback, without pressuring them or trying to dominate the debate. Dan arndt (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
OK Dan arndt. However, I would kindly appreciate you letting us know your thoughts on what I mentioned about What I mentioned about the point it mentions Hon. on the Parliamentary website vs using The Honourable on the Wikipedia page. What I meant by "We are waiting" is that most users on this conversation seem to agree with using The Honourable instead of Hon. or Honourable and your are the only one who prefers Hon., hence your opinion matters to this. I would like to move to a conclusion on this topic soon so we can focus on other things - LionCountry25 (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Firstly I disagree with your sweeping statement that 'most users on this conversation seem to agree with using The Honourable instaed of Hon.' and that I am the only one who prefer Hon. (refer to other users comments: If I'm pushed to make a final decision, I'd say keep 'Hon.' and Given that Dan has already brought some consistency by changing most references to "Hon." why do we want waste time changing them to something else.). If anything I would say that the result of this discussion is that there is no consensus view - which means one of two things we go back to a situation where there is no consistency and depending upon the editors point of view we either have no honorific, or The Honourable, The Hon. or Hon. which would appear to be nonsensical or we just leave the current status quo and don't make any changes to the way things currently are - allowing us all to concentrate on other more important issues. Dan arndt (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────── Dan arndt the current status quo is too fluid which is the reason for this conversation! My opinion is based on the comments I read from others which you pointed out if that editor had to make a final decision he would go with The Honourable rather than something else. Yet again you have avoided my main question regarding my Hansard findings, which defeats your argument fo using Hon. You are also getting the MOS:HON wrong: § Knighthoods, lordships, and similar honorific titles - LionCountry25 (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, so if no one has anything else to say can we come to a conclusion. Most of us in some level seem to agree to Sticking to The Honourable over Hon. or Honourable? and I don't see the point of coming up with an alternative rather than what is given. Dan arndt, - ක -, Obi2canibe, Cossde, Blackknight12 - LionCountry25 (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Once again you are being presumptuous and a touch arrogant in saying that there is a consensus view that we change all the articles from Hon. to The Honourable. If anything there is obviously not a clear consensus at all. In these cases the usual course of action is to stay with the current status (i.e. no change from the articles as they currently are). Dan arndt (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
BTW if you check the recent Hansard transcripts they all state Hon. not the long form, The Honourable. Dan arndt (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Dan arndt, this is the exact message I was trying to get to you in my last few comments. In the Australian Hansard reports [6] and UK [7] both have the same as the Sri Lankan hansard reports. Yet in Wikipedia they use The Honourable in full! - LionCountry25 (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
All the more reason to leave the articles as is, ie Hon. Dan arndt (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
As I said before, it doesn't really matter to me so much, just as long as they are consistant. And as Dan arndt is the only one who is doing any productive work here, rather than wasting time and effort on petty issues, I suggest we stay with what we have. I support Dan arndt. The fact that Australia and the UK does it their way, should not have any weight here, for as I said before Sri Lanka also has its own way of doing it and we need not rely on other countries for the reasons I stated above.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Fully agree with Dan and Blackknight12's comments. LionCountry25 - many Sri Lankan politician articles are in a poor shape, poorly sourced and often no more than stubs. Spend a couple of hours trying to expand on these articles. You'll be amazed how much difference that makes.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, Obi2canibe yes I want to improve these articles as much as you do and I have been gathering sources for those articles while this is happening. Might I also remind you the fact that Dan arndt came up with his own theory § Knighthoods, lordships, and similar honorific titles when it is clearly stated. I don't want to waist my time as well which is why I am not happy to put an alternative to such a simple phrase!! And no Dan arndt it is not a UK or Australian style it is a Wikipedia style!! and no I am not happy with the current status as you are the one who stubbornly changed all of this to your preference. And before you guys say that is my preference, I will say my preference is the norm of things and not coming with an alternative!! - LionCountry25 (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────── I think that this discussion has played itself out. It has been over two weeks and there has been no further comment/input from any user. The general consensus is that we stay with the format that we currently have (i.e. Hon.) for politicians. It is consistent with the term used in the Sri Lanka Hansard and the Parlimentary Directory. Dan arndt (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

No Dan arndt this is not the end of it. As I pointed out the norm in Wikipedia has been leaving things without abbreviating as I have pointed out and as everyone can see. I was waiting for others opinion on this but the only thing i'm getting is silence - LionCountry25 (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
If you read through the comments above it is clear that all the other editors involved have given their opinions, which in summary (& correct me if I’ve interpreted it wrongly) have agreed that in respect to Ceylonese/Sri Lankan politicians we will use the abbreviated honorific of Hon. So I’m not certain who the ‘others’ are that you are referring to. Dan arndt (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the discussion has come to a close. Its been inactive for a while and it seems like everybody who had something to say has said it by now on this minute issue. User:LionCountry25, you should use your time wisely to move on and create some new articles and help expand WikiProject Sri Lanka.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Blackknight12, we have not come up with any conclusion here have we? so how can we say this comes to an end. Dan arndt no one has given a good reason for abbreviating The Honourable into Hon. something I don't understand why we have to do when the rest of the world follows the same protocol (of not abbreviating) - LionCountry25 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, all the editors here bar LionCountry25, have each agreed to formatting the Ceylonese/Sri Lankan politicians articles with the abbreviation of Hon. in the infobox. I have previously given my reasons, which have been accepted by all involved. We can therefore call this discussion closed and all move on to more productive things.Dan arndt (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I want it on the record that I didn't fully accept it. But then maybe that doesn't matter, seeing as, other than you, apparently everyone else here is being unproductive and petty, according to Blackknight. Good to know only barnstarred editors' contributions are truly appreciated here. If nothing else, this thread has shown how truly fucked this Wikiproject is: you lot will come out and hammer down other editors for going against your opinions, but ask for just an ounce of constructive collaboration (as I've done several times on these Talk pages), and everyone goes mum. On top of that, you've now avoided addressing the matter of an openly biased nationalist within the ranks of this Wikiproject, something I asked around about below. - ක - (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
List of ministries of Sri Lanka[edit]

For anyone unfamiliar with this topic, it relates to the List of ministries of Sri Lanka. This is a list of articles that I think needs a final decision to be arrived upon, since we can't keep making new articles or moving them when whoever is in power decides to combine the Ministry of Health with the Ministry of Petroleum Resources, or splits the Ministry of Education so a Ministry for Libraries comes into being. Some way of combining/linking these pages together needs to be thought of. It's embarrassing if we can't even maintain the articles to do with the State, tbh. I think, @Rehman: you had some ideas? - ක - (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

One solution is to convert the ministry articles into list of ministers articles and use generic terms (e.g. agriculture, education, health, housing, transport) rather than the specific term used by the Sri Lankan government. See Template:Types of government ministers and Category:Government ministers by portfolio for more generic terms.
So, for example, Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine would become List of health ministers of Sri Lanka. Whenever there's cabinet reshuffle we can simply slot whoever is responsible for health into the list article, irrespective of their official title, and we don't have to rename the article.
Most of the ministry articles started life as ministers articles but it was Rehman who unilaterally decided to rename the articles several years ago ([8]), causing the present headache. We could continue to keep the ministry articles but they would not have a list of ministers in them, they would just link to the relevant list of ministers article(s). This is how a few of the ministry articles currently work (e.g. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Sri Lanka) / Minister of Foreign Affairs (Sri Lanka)). In some cases the ministry articles may link to more than one list of ministers article e.g. there is currently a Ministry of Higher Education and Culture which could link to List of higher education ministers of Sri Lanka and List of culture ministers of Sri Lanka.
If we decide to go down this route, in order to maintain edit history, the existing ministry articles need to be renamed list of ministers and new articles created for the ministry.
We need to get rid of some of the obscure ministries (e.g. Ministry of Botanical Gardens and Public Recreation, Ministry of Coconut Development and Janatha Estate Development, Ministry of National Heritage) as these will be almost impossible to keep up to date irrespective of which format we decide upon. I'd suggest redirecting these Cabinet of Sri Lanka.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you on these points, with a few exceptions. Firstly, I think we should retain the 'ry' articles, and do away with the lists (unless the lists are absolutely massive), simply because a List of Ministers would have no real way of containing info about the Ministry and what it does, where it's located etc. Well they could, but it'd look awkward.
I do agree that the ultra-specific Ministry names and the obscure ones need to go. However, rerouting the obscure ones to the Cabinet page en masse could be problematic, since (and I may be wrong here) some of these aren't Cabinet ministries, are they?. Perhaps we could redirect the obscure ones that are in the Cabinet to the Cabinet page and the rest to something like 'List of Non-Cabinet Ministries of Sri Lanka'? On that page, we could have a list of links to the non-Cabinet ministries that do have Wiki articles, and brief sections in prose about the ones that dont. That allows us to have a good way of separating the Cabinet ministries from the non-Cabinet ones too.- ක - (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jesuschristonacamel: We can continue to have ministry articles for the major ministries. In my example, we can continue to have the Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine article with all the current content except that the "Ministers" section would not have a list of ministers, it would just link to a separate List of health ministers of Sri Lanka article. I think that lists of ministers, wherever they are located, are important. We shouldn't get rid of them.
I'm afraid all of the obscure ministries were indeed cabinet ministries, not non-cabinet/state ministries. Every entry on List of ministries of Sri Lanka was a full fledged cabinet ministry. At one point during the Rajapaksa regime there were around 60 cabinet ministers, each with their own ministry. Even now there are over 40 cabinet ministers.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Obi2canibe: This is seriously weird- I remember writing something completely different in my opening paragraph in my last reply, which is supposed to read: "I agree with you on these points, with a few exceptions. Firstly, I think we should retain the 'ry' articles, and do away with the minor ministries, keeping the lists in the Ministry article (unless the lists are absolutely massive), simply because a List of Ministers alone would have no real way of containing info about the Ministry and what it does, where it's located etc. Well they could, but it'd look awkward." Either I'm developing amnesia, or my phone simply erased blocks of text from my reply.
So in summary, we keep the major ministries (Finance, Defence, Health, Agriculture etc) with their base names (i.e.- "Health" as opposed to "Health, Nutrition, Indigenous Medicines, Somethingelsewe'vegiventhisguybecausewewanthiminourcabinet"), moving the lists to a separate article linked to each other. All non-major ministries get redirected to the Cabinet page.
On the point about the importance of lists- how do you propose we handle lists of ministers for one-off ministries or the non-major ones? I don't think those are notable enough to have articles with lists for just a couple ministers. Maybe a list of lists-type article, listing all non-major ministers there were, arranged by title. - ක - (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jesuschristonacamel: Thanks, I think we're almost there. In respect of the minor/one-off ministries, I agree that they aren't notable. We already have the various cabinet articles (e.g. Sirisena cabinet) which list every minister so I don't think there is any need to create a new list.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@Obi2canibe: So, no list of one-time ministers whose ministries no longer exist? For instance, there was a ministry for libraries under Mahinda. I take it that, in your plan, his name will not appear anywhere on Wikipedia? - ක - (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jesuschristonacamel: Your library minister should appear in Rajapaksa cabinet. And as a minister he should definitely have an article.
I'm sensing resistance to my suggestion. I was just responding to your comment. If you have a better suggestion please say so.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Just a thought. Is there an option to create a separate 'List of former and minor ministries of Sri Lanka', that way the 'List of ministries of Sri Lanka' won't be as unwieldy, with the inclusion of all these obscure/minor ministries that have been created over time. Then for Ministries to keep them under their main portfolio (i.e. Finance, Health, Education, Agriculture, Housing etc.) with a redirect from those historic minor ministries or ministry names to the primary name/function, as opposed to creating a new article every time there is a name change. The primary articles could then note when previous name changes to the ministry occurred and what the current name is. Dan arndt (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh no, no resistance. Just curious. I'm all for this plan then. I think Dan's suggestion is a good addition too, but I don't know if the main article listing name changes would be useful. - ක - (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You can create a list of minor ministries but I don't see what use they would be and they would be duplicating content from the cabinet articles anyway. It's just creating unnecessary work. Frankly, I would get rid of List of ministries of Sri Lanka completely, it serves no useful purpose.
For the ministries we have use the current official name, not a generic name, in order to comply with WP:NCGAL. So we need to use Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, not Ministry of Health (Sri Lanka). We would have to re-name the ministries every time there is a name change but this shouldn't be problem if we have 10/20 ministry articles instead of 40/50.--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
But this just makes this entire discussion pointless- WP:NCGAL invalidates everything we've been just talking about. Renaming these articles are going to be an absolute pain. - ක - (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
If we can reduce the number of ministry articles to fewer than 20 the task of renaming articles isn't too onerous. In fact I have been keeping the most of the major ministries up to date. It's the minor ministries which are the problem.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm.... So do we call it a day and say we've reached a consensus here? - ක - (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, can you summarise the consensus - I can't see the woods for the trees!--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Ethnicity of Politicians?[edit]

All the articles made by Obi2canibe have include the ethnicity of politicians. It is not a field in the infobox of a politican! - LionCountry25 (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you’ll find that at the time that these articles were created there was a field for enthnicity however following a discussion it was agreed that this field was no longer applicable, so it is really just a legacy issue rather than an intentional inclusion/variation. As a result it is just a case of removing the field were they occur. Noting that they do not appear in any case as they are an excluded field. Dan arndt (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
So we are in agreement we can remove these 2 fields Obi2canibe and Dan arndt - LionCountry25 (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Obi2canibe and Dan arndt, I would appreciate it if you two can respond to this soon please - LionCountry25 (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with the remove of the ethnicity field as I don't see it as being relevant. Dan arndt (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Dan arndt: On a related note, what is the policy or consensus- should one exist on our Project- on mentioning ethnicity in the lead? Obi2canibe's biographies, which are ostensibly on Tamil individuals (nothing wrong with that, that's his area of expertise), start with "XXXXX was a Sri Lankan Tamil", a practice that's not followed as a rule on Sinhala/Moor/other minorities' biographies. This was recently a point of contention between me and said user, which you will find here. This same user is now the subject of a discussion for needlessly categorizing articles based on ethnicity, here. He has so far not offered any explanation for this obsession with separating articles by ethnicity. I believe the community here (yes, all five active users!) need to decide what the upshot of this is going to be. - ක - (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I’m not aware of any specific policy on the use of ethnicity in either infoboxes or articles. I personally do not feel there is a need to state an individual’s enthnicity unless it has a bearing on the individual’s notability. For example the issue of entnicity is relevant in respect to early Ceylonese politicians as ethnicity played an important role in voting on legislation etc. In articles such as economicists and engineers the issue of ethnicity has really no bearing on the individual’s notability and shouldn’t necessarily be included. I don’t believe that it should be included in the infobox, using the same approach that applies to religion where this has now been specifically excluded as a field. Dan arndt (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
This is something I have noticed quite a long time ago too. While I think ethnicity is important when you are in the field of politics, it shouldn't define nor should politicians be divided by what ethnicity they belong to. Ethnicity should definitely be recorded in the article but I do agree that politicians should not be introduced as a Sinhalese or Tamil politician, but rather a Sri Lankan politician. Ethnicity can be further elaborated in the lead if it is important to their policies, otherwise can be mentioned in their personal life section.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing broken 'Current members' list on project page[edit]

Title says it all. The code running the "currently active members" section has been dead for a while. A message to the creator I sent months ago has not been answered, and it appears he's no longer it. I suggest removing the section from the project page- it's pointless keeping an outdated list there, and it's a disservice to editors who joined after the code stopped functioning. - ක - (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Since there has been no comment from anyone on the matter, I've taken it as a sign of there being no objections to the proposal and gone ahead and removed the list from our portal. - ක - (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Sri Lankan reliable sources[edit]

What are examples of Sri Lankan reliable sources? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on election/referendum naming format[edit]

An RfC on moving the year from the end to the start of article titles (e.g. South African general election, 2019 to 2019 South African general election) has been reopened for further comment, including on whether a bot could be used move the articles if it closed in favour of the change: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 57 15:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

On the origin of communities[edit]

There is a discussion here at the India Project noticeboard that is of relevance to this project. - Sitush (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)