Talk:Royal College, Colombo/Archive 1

Assessment
This article is developing well. You need to focus on adding references to qualify for B class. There are rather too many lists and it would be best if they could be converted to prose wherever possible. Because of the prestige of the school and the distinguished alumni I am making this school top importance. Dahliarose (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request
There's a bit of reverting going on, so I don't want to bury edits. Here are some that need doing:


 * Last sentence in lede has logical issues and needs an "among whom" or something
 * Lower case for "Public school", "Presidents", "Prime Minister", and many section headings
 * History section: image right per MOS
 * In popular culture: novels italics not bold

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, please let me know if I missed any. Cossde (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Contested move
This article should not be moved from Royal College, Colombo to Royal College Colombo. There is no correct name and the school is known by different names: Given this conflict in the name, we should use the standard format used in similar Wikipedia articles which is School Name, Town.-- obi2canibe talk contr 12:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Royal College, Colombo: Gazette 1471/13 (page 13) & Gazette 1613/40 (page 14).
 * Co/Royal College, Colombo: Ministry of Education 1 (page 1) & Ministry of Education 2 (page 1).


 * Do with this what you will, but if anything I think Royal College (Colombo) would be the most MOS-compliant title, rather than Royal College, Colombo. --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Then in English language other Royal Colleges in Sri Lanka should be named for example:
 * Royal College Panadura - Royal College (Panadura)
 * Rajakeeya Maha Vidyalaya, Telijjawila - Royal College (Telijjawila)
 * Polonnaruwa Rajakeeya Madya Maha Vidyalaya - Royal College (Polonnaruwa)

Else Royal Colleges in Sri Lanka (including Royal College, Colombo - it is NOT situated in United Kingdom or a British school) can be named most MOS-compliant title:
 * Co/Royal College, Colombo - Not The Royal College of Colombo
 * Pan/Royal College, Panadura
 * Tel/Royal College, Telijjawila
 * Pol/Royal College, Polonnaruwa

Remember this is English language wikipedia and all of above colleges are situated in Sri Lanka not in United Kingdom, although they use Royal (First name of the school) in English. (Masu7 (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)).

Well, Masu7 the answer to your problem is the point stated by Obi2canibe (who it seems that you support): WP:COMMONNAME. Cossde (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since apparently there is concern for a large number of articles, we can't discuss all of them here. I recommend that someone start an RfC on WT:WikiProject Sri Lanka to see if there is a wider consensus for a set of standardized names for all of these colleges. Whoever is interested will need to gather reliable sources to demonstrate what the names are. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was No move. Cúchullain t/ c 18:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Royal College, Colombo → Royal College Colombo – As per the foundation stone (image) of Old Royal College Building which is currently the Department of Mathematics of the University of Colombo, this institution was refereed to as Royal College Colombo since 1911 based on this source (foundation stone). Therefore the article should be renamed accordingly. Cossde (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is one source from more than a century ago. This does not prove that Royal College Colombo is the school's common name. As the previous discussion shows, the school is known by a myriad of names. Therefore we should continue to use Royal College, Colombo as this is the standard format used in other Sri Lankan school articles.-- obi2canibe talk contr 13:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As you, your self has pointed out this is a source (written in stone) almost a century old. This proves the fact that the schools name was Royal College Colombo since at least 1911 (although its official since 1881). Therefore any variations there might be are over ruled as this proves that this was the name in use since time in memorial. Furthermore what is the basis for you to claim for the use of Royal College, Colombo as this is the standard format used in other Sri Lankan school articles ? Cossde (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite convinced by that stone—people sometimes tend to omit commas (as well as lowercase letters) when writing on stone. Ucucha (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Ucucha, if you looked closely at the foundation stone you may notice the accurate punctuation marks where use in stating the name of the governor as well as a lower case letter as appropriate. Cossde (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Searching Google Books and Scholar reveals an overwhelming preference for the use of a comma in the title among reliable, secondary sources. WP:OFFICIALNAME carries less weight, even when carved in stone. Favonian (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

One name only
Royal College, Colombo is the article name, and so the lede and infobox should match, right? I gather that the page move discussion above means this. Can we get this sorted out here once and for all? I will make all three match. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest the use of Royal College Colombo as it is the name used by the college since 1881, as made evident in the discussion above and in the current stationary of the school. Unlike the foundation stone the stationary of the college can not be publicly disclosed in digital format without the permission of the college. Cossde (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The section above closed with "Royal College, Colombo". In order for the infobox and lede to be change, first the article name must be changed. That was discussed and opposed. So, it looks like "Royal College, Colombo" unless consensus is reached here. Does that sound reasonable? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Taking note of your observations I edited the lead and inforbox based on the name used in the official website. Since Royal College is been used as common name in its web site and within Sri Lanka, the article name should be it and it would mean well with the current name to void contradiction with general phrase Royal College. Cossde (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

School naming issue
I have started a Request for Comment discussion at WP:WikiProject Schools regarding the proper name for this school and other related schools in Sri Lanka. I invite all interested editors to discuss the matter there, because I want to end the non-stop edit warring on these articles. The discussion can be found at WT:WikiProject Schools. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Royal College, Colombo
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Royal College, Colombo's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC": From Zimbabwe:  From Tunisia:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Royal College Colombo reliable sources denied by User:Cossde
Can it be explained why following real life reliable sources are being denied causing edit warning. Only peacock words are allowed for the edits done by User:Cossde ?. I think this is against the heart of Wikipedia. The said sources are freely available in real life on internet for any one to search.

(Xe2oner (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

The answer to this is simple, srilankahockey.com is not a RS, and while the other could be considered as RS in the context of schools they can not be considered as RS simply because even the same paper has different forms of naming such as;
 * 1) The Sundayobserver refers to Royal College Colombo as Royal College, Colombo in these, while in this it refers to the college as Colombo Royal College.
 * 2) The Dailynews refers to Royal College Colombo as Royal College, Colombo in these, , while in these it refers to the college as Colombo Royal College , ,  when in these it is simple is referred to as Royal College , ,

Therefore in terns of the schools name these sources are "unreliable" in a naming context and hence can not be added here. Cossde (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cossde, your position has absolutely zero basis in Wikipedia policy. Well, you're right that srilankahockey.com is not a reliable source. But the mere fact that the newspapers use multiple different versions is in fact what tells us that our article must use multiple different versions! There's no logic behind saying "because they aren't consistent in naming, therefore they aren't reliable with respect to naming." In fact, it shows that how the colleges are named depends on the individual writer, and thus shows that there are multiple names for these schools, which, in turn, shows us that our article must include all of the normally used names. Note that this is not addressing the issue of which name should be primary--that's a more difficult question, which requires determining which name is most prevalent, and does require us evaluating the quality of the sources. But so long as multiple names our used, our article must, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine in such as case a name section can be created to lists other names. Cossde (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

where the first name is that used in the article title and is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Copied from User talk:Qwyrxian) - I've looked at what you did and am unconvinced: it was repetitive, poorly phrased, had various problems with format/guidelines, and was pedantic regarding an obvious newspaper copyediting issue. After resolving those points, we seem to be left pretty much with a list of names ... which could just as well be shown in the more usual manner that I refer to above. I am not sure why it is you are being so resistant to the naming issue but burying it as you did is not appropriate even though I appreciate the attempt at compromise. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a separate section on names, and indeed short sections are deprecated. If the names can be sourced then they can be referenced in the opening sentence in the form of "Name of school per article title (also known as ABC[1] or XYZ[2]) ..."

User:Cossde your intentions are very clear and simple to understand. Nothing complex. It is either my way or no way attitude. You do not care about Wikipedia policies or complex rules all what you want is to have only one school that contains the word ROYAL in it's name in Sri Lanka and that is Royal College, Colombo. It is also claimed to be the only school that is got a Royal charter. All the rest of the schools are illegal and not qualified to have a wiki page even with real life references are added. This is the simple answer but a disgrace to all of the Wikipedia editorial community. If User:Cossde can prove that Royal College, Colombo is situated in United Kingdom it will some how be claimed. But the intelligent readers and editors know that is situated in Colombo Sri Lanka. (Xe2oner (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

I don't think that there is a reason for responding to this rhetoric of Xe2oner. Cossde (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

College name
Xe2oner's last edits on the section college name, I will remove even though their are sourced, per WP:COMMONNAME the " most common name for a subject" in this case the names "Royalists" or "Old Royalists" are commonly used to refer to alumni of Royal College Colombo in Sri Lanka. This would be proven from a simple Google search of these names in a Sri Lankan context. Therefore per WP:POVTITLE: "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources" use of "Colombo Royalist" would be inaccurate.Cossde (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted you. I have no particular opinion regarding the content but what has WP:POVTITLE got to do with a note in a section? The links that you refer to relate to article titles. Please continue discussing. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please could you note my comment here. I've no idea if the purpose and convention of talk page usage has passed people by, but if a topic is controversial then you should continue discussion and not merely state your view & then impose it on the article. There seems to be a lot of wikilawyering going on, so I am bemused that those who claim knowledge of all the various policies etc that they cite are unaware of this basic standard. Please remember that WP:CONSENSUS is a core policy. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems so, my mistake. However if you read the two articles both of them refer to current alumni of Royal College Colombo as Royalists (eg:Title: Royalist Ramith Rambukwella, Observer-Mobitel Most Popular Schoolboy Cricketer of the Year 2011). But when presented with students from Panadura Royal College in an attempt to distinguish, only in that single sentence in which both schools are mentioned (same in both articles) does the writer use the term Colombo Royalists. Therefore using these two single occurrences the editor has tried to generalize. Because even in these two articles, the term Colombo Royalists is not used when students of Royal College Colombo are concerned but their are refereed to as as Royalists. If you dont take my word, please do a simple search on Google on Royalists in Sri Lanka and see the out come. Cossde (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * well, an IP has just removed it. That is quite a coincidence and I do hope that it was not someone editing while logged out. I reverted them, pending some sort of consensus here. I'll try to take a look at the cited sources but right now I am hoping that all concerned can come to their senses with regard to the warring etc. If not then blocks are extremely likely in order to prevent continued disruption. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Cossde - your arguments for getting your own way are getting more and more ridiculous. You know very well that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE only apply to the title, they don't apply to the content. This has been pointed out to you on several occasions by different editors and yet you continue to use them. If RS can be provided to show that the school or its student body are known by different names there is no excuse for excluding them. Xe2oner may have been lazy in the references he provided but there are RS to verify that its students are known as Colombo Royalists - DN, SO. And why has this content about the school's names been moved to a separate section at the end of the article? Moving it to the end seems to be an attempt to bury the content. Two sentences/40 words don't merit a separate section. This content should be included in the lead (as it was). Look at how these Good Articles have shown their different names: Dougherty Valley High School; Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio); North Community High School; Washington & Jefferson College; Providence College; Syracuse University; University College, Durham; University of Nottingham; University of Toronto; University of Valle. Not in a separate section but in the lead.-- obi2canibe talk contr 17:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is currently a thread at WP:ANI relating to user conduct here. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Only one ROYAL allowed in SRI LANKA...one man show ..........You be the judge if you have common sense!!!
If you have common sense it wont take much time to understand.....Only one ROYAL allowed in SRI LANKA and that is prestigious Royal College Colombo....compare the two below and judge yourself....it is very easy.


 * Royal College, Colombo: Difference between revisions done by IP 112.135.65.35 on 2 October 2012 at 18:05


 * Suspected sockpuppets IP 112.135.x.x


 * User:Xe2oner discussion here

(Xe2oner (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)).

Royalists related to Sri Lankan Schools:

 * Absolutely nothing to do with any Monarch, Royal charter or United Kingdom.


 * Identifies peoples relating / membership to an entity Royal (Sinhalese: Rajakeeya රාජකීය)  - in this case a school containing word ROYAL''' on it's name.

Real life references are as follows:


 * Current students of Royal College Panadura are called Panadura Royalists


 * Current students of Royal College Kurunegala are called Wayamba Royalists


 * Current students of Royal College, Colombo are called Colombo Royalists

By adding the location in front specifically distinguishes that they are from Panadura, Wayamba and Colombo.

Similarly Old Boys of the said schools can be called Old Royalists in general. No references are needed for them being called Royalists. It is common sense.

If they are to be super specifically distinguished can be called:


 * Old Royalists (Panadura)
 * Old Royalists (Wayamba)
 * Old Royalists (Colombo)

Another simple example for further understanding but non related to that of schools:
 * Peoples relating to country Sri Lanka are called SRI LANKANS
 * Peoples relating to country America are called AMERICANS
 * Peoples relating to country United Kingdom are called British, Britons, Brits or Britishers

Any one wanting a word by word reference for this point to be proved better pass a Common sense test or keep swapping words and continue endless debates.(Xe2oner (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC))


 * Please can we keep this simple. I think it would be far better to concentrate on a short, reasoned response to the thread above this one. Is that proposal acceptable to you for this article? Issues relating to other articles can be dealt with on their respective talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Following RS, , , , , , clearly states that the alumni of Royal College Colombo are referred to as Old Royalist. Even in the articles cited by Xe2oner,  and  as "Royalist" even in its title. Therefore the justification (of sorts) provided by Xe2oner is clearly WP:OR. Cossde (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Other schools with name ROYAL not suitable to be on Wiki ?
Can it be explained why other schools that has word ROYAL on name are considered by User:Cossde either must have a differnet name, are illegal in Sri Lanka or not suitable to be on Wikipedia (once it was proposed by this editor to be deleted).

It is common sense that though below schools have word ROYAL on the name none have links to Royal College Colombo.

Some of the sites are:


 * Panadura Royal College
 * Monaragala Royal College
 * Nagoda Royal National College
 * Ranabima Royal College
 * Royal College Wayamba, Kurunegala
 * Rajakeeya Maha Vidyalaya, Telijjawila
 * Kurunduwatta Royal College
 * Polonnaruwa Rajakeeya Madya Maha Vidyalaya

Also the same editor proposed Battle of the Greens to be deleted ignoring all relaible sources. This is a true and sheer act against the heart of Wikipedia and an insult to other editorial community that has common sense.(Xe2oner (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)).

I'm sorry Xe2oner this is not the correct talk page for this. Please take these discussions to the relevant pages. Cossde (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No need to be sorry User:Cossde. Your intentions are very simple to understand. No need to write pages and pages. Only one school that contains the word ROYAL in it's name in Sri Lanka and that is Royal College, Colombo is the simple rule.(Xe2oner (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)).

discussions to the relevant pages are here (Xe2oner (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

Suggest to have this heading ==College name and other schools==

The school is referred as Royal College in Sri Lanka or simply as "Royal". Local newspapers also refer to it as "Royal College, College 7" and "Colombo Royal College". whilst current students of Royal are called "Colombo Royalists"

Royal College's maintains a century old rivalry with S. Thomas' College, Mount Lavinia as well as close ties with Trinity College, Kandy. Royal has long had a familial relationship with C.M.S. Ladies' College, Colombo : several families who chose to send their sons to Royal also chose to send their daughters to Ladies College, and many Old Royalists over the years have married alumni of C.M.S. Ladies' College, Colombo.

In 1945, Minister of Education C. W. W. Kannangara began the establishment of central colleges (Madhya Maha Vidhyala) as part of the Free Education policy to provide secondary education for the rural masses, he modeled these schools on the general structure of Royal College Colombo.

Although there are several schools (ie: Royal College Panadura, Royal College Wayamba, Kurunegala, Royal College, Polonnaruwa, Royal College, Horana, Kurunduwatta Royal College, Royal College Monaragala etc) in parts of the island that have adapted the name Royal College in the post-independence era even after Sri Lanka became a republic in 1972; none have links to Royal College Colombo.

(85.24.188.250 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)).

Removal of info
Why this edit. Yes, it has an edit summary but I have said before that there is nothing wrong with copying between articles provided that the original copy was attributed. If it was not then removal and immediate reinstatement with a suitable attribution should suffice. In other words, the edit summary in this instance does not provide a valid removal rationale. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply the what goes on around the school the directly effects the school is not part of it. Here the Ceylon Government school was created to cover the overflow of students from Royal Prep. Therefore the connection is between these two schools as mention in both the articles. Furthermore until 1977 Royal Prep was not part of Royal College Colombo it was a separate school. The Alamo is not part of the United_States. Cossde (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Now Xe2oner is creating a false linage as these two schools are not linked in any form or part. Cossde (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It certainly seems at least to be overlong. A single sentence might do the job but the prose is so poor that I am struggling to determine the degree of relevance. I encourage Xe2oner to start talking about this because there are people watching who have the power to block once more. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * His activity seems to be very broad over ruling RS too . Cossde (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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 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, 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 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 |this. 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, 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, 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 Royal College, Colombo and linking it from the article using (link to gallery only) or  (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. 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 · &#32;talk 17:21, 17 December 2012 (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)