Talk:List of presidents of Sri Lanka

REDIRECT Talk:List of heads of state of Sri Lanka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:201F:4AAA:0:0:2866:58A0 (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The description of the Executive Presidency is taken almost verbatim from the cited article in Indian Express. Tyronen 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

File:DingiriBandaWijetunga.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DingiriBandaWijetunga.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 29 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Presidents of Sri Lanka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090512205351/http://www.cnn.com:80/WORLD/9611/01/sri.lanka.obit/index.html?iref=newssearch to http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9611/01/sri.lanka.obit/index.html?iref=newssearch

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: listed pages moved as described. I'd spotted this RM earlier this week and have mulled over how to close it, but consensus is quite clear here. Those supporting the move have made an adequate rationale for the move as supported by our manual of style, among other policies and guidelines cited in this discussion. Taking into account recent requested moves discussions similar to this one where a consensus was determined to move the titles to this style of title affirms the application of this manual of style guideline.

Those opposing the move have argued largely on principle, that a requested moves discussion from a year ago on List of Presidents of the United States that resulted in no consensus to move the titles, which was affirmed as no consensus after a moves review, supports the argument that the current format of article titles should apply. However, consensus can change, and more recent discussions as noted have found a consensus on similar articles to make the change. I don't see anything else in the opposition here to overcome the arguments by those supporting, hence my close in the affirmative. I would, however, recommend that a local discussion takes place on that article, rather than a page move taking place based on this discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

---

• List of Presidents of Sri Lanka → List of presidents of Sri Lanka
• List of Presidents of South Korea → List of presidents of South Korea
• List of Presidents of Syria → List of presidents of Syria
• List of Presidents of Vietnam → List of presidents of Vietnam
• List of Presidents of Mauritius → List of presidents of Mauritius
• List of Presidents of Lebanon → List of presidents of Lebanon
• List of Presidents of the Philippines → List of presidents of the Philippines
• List of Presidents of Iraq → List of presidents of Iraq
• List of Presidents of China → List of presidents of China
• List of Presidents of the People's Republic of China → List of presidents of the People's Republic of China
• List of Presidents of the Republic of China → List of presidents of the Republic of China

– Per Wikipedia's MOS:JOBTITLES: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically. They are capitalized... when a formal title for a specific entity... is not plural."
This Wikipedia guideline reflects major style guides such as AP Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style, which explicitly state that "presidents" (plural) should always be lower case and that "president" (singular) should be upper case only when preceding a president's name.
See also the recently concluded multiple page move requests at Talk:List of presidents of the Czech Republic, Talk:List of presidents of Austria, Talk:List of chancellors of Germany, Talk:List of governors of New York, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose all per principal, has anyone else noticed that with all these nominations over the past couple of months, and then pointing to the results as proof that Wikipedia wants to have all similar articles lower-cased, that the nominators haven't yet re-nommed the pages where the case discussions have gone the other way. List of Presidents of the United States and List of Vice-Presidents of the United States still stand out as original precedent. If they are eventually re-nommed they should be nominated at their own pages and not in a long list that seems to be eventually working up to them. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pardon me, but I do not understand; do you have an actual policy/guideline- or orthography-based argument in opposing this nomination or not? I would expect an oppose comment to try to refute all the reputable style books and Wikipedia guidelines I am citing. Surtsicna (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENCY is part of Wikipedia policy on article titles. Arguing that these articles should be consistent with List of Presidents of the United States is perfectly valid. (Of course, so is arguing that they should be consistent with List of presidents of Austria.) Opera hat (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Arguing that these articles should be consistent with List of Presidents of the United States is only valid if one makes an effort to demonstrate that List of Presidents of the United States is titled correctly, wouldn't you agree? Arguing that dozens of article titles should contravene a Wikipedia guideline and basic orthography just because a US-related article does it... that's just Americentrism. Surtsicna (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose and would hope that somebody somewhere just flips a coin to end all these endless moves once and for all. All of these usages were fine for years and years. Either form can work. Just leave it be? Re Sursicna's comment, sure, there are plenty of style guides that say don't capitalize, but there are style guides that say do capitalize, and there's tons of usage both ways. My impression is that capitalized is more common among actual use, but even if it was 50/50, that would argue in favor of the status quo. SnowFire (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, they were never fine. This mockery of English orthography and the consensus-based guidelines of Wikipedia was merely tolerated, and I am not inclined to "just leave it be". If there are style guides that say "do capitalize", as you claim, please cite them. Your impression is also irrelevant if you cannot back it up. Seriously, I cited this project's own guideline and two of the most reputable English language style guides, and all you have is "leave it be" and "my impression"? Surtsicna (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: if these articles should be moved, then so should List of Presidents of Brazil, List of Presidents of France, List of Presidents of Russia and List of Presidents of the United States. Would it be in order to add these to this nomination? Opera hat (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know about those articles. At the moment, I am concerned with the lists of presidents of Asian countries. Some move request closers are reluctant to move too many articles at once, as I've learned from Red Slash at Talk:List_of_governors_of_New_York#Requested_move_11_April_2019 :) Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. All editors should thank Surtsicna for systematically ending this travesty. I thank you, Surtsicna, because the agreement that backs the MOS represents Wikipedia's community consensus for what to do in these cases. If not followed, then there has to be very good reason not to do so. In all these discussions, I've never seen such a reason. Even List of Presidents of the United States (incorrect) is inconsistent with List of presidents of the United States by age (correct). I thought community consensus was supposed to mean something on Wikipedia. Oppose !votes make me wonder! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  19:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Also please note that these article renames are supported by WP:NCCAPS (another guideline) and both the naming convention and the MOS are cited in and supported by WP:AT (article title policy). Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  12:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. We should follow our standards on title capitalization. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose If MOS:JOBTITLES doesn't apply to List of Presidents of the United States it doesn't apply to these articles. If the nominator really wants enforce Wikipedia policies he/she should nominate all presidential lists with capitalisation, not just the small fry, and hold the discussion at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States, rather than picking an obscure article in order to get his/her way.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Whataboutery is not helpful, and neither is the suggestion that these lists are somehow subordinate to List of Presidents of the United States. They are not. I gather that, again, there is no guideline- or orthography-based opposition to the move request. Mind you, it is not just MOS:JOBTITLES (as if community-wide consensus were not enough) but also all English-language orthography books. Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not Whataboutery, it's a matter of principle as Randy Kryn has said. I don't consider these articles to be sub-ordinate to List of Presidents of the United States either but you have made them so by only nominating them. That may have not been your intention. Several editors have now pointed out why this move discussion is wrong in principle even if it may be right according to policy. You need to stop thinking like a bureaucrat and look at the bigger picture - if this move succeeds we will have two tiers of articles - a superior tier where capitalization is allowed and an inferior tier where policy is blindly enforced.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid it perfectly fits the definition of whataboutery because you are accusing me of treating different cases differently without attempting to refute any of my arguments. This is not a matter of mere policy; it is a matter of basic English language orthography. I cannot comprehend how grammatically or orthographically incorrect content could be deemed superior to grammatically or orthographically correct content. That would be just perverse. I am not thinking like a bureaucrat but like a person with at least a basic grasp at English orthography. Besides, there already are "two tiers" in Category:Lists of national presidents: the correct one and the incorrect one. Surtsicna (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is not a good enough reason to ignore the MOS guideline (not a policy). You seem to think that the guideline should not be "blindly enforced". That's just a way of justifying your untenable position. The MOS is supported by a community consensus, which effectively makes your oppose !vote null and void just like all the other oppose !votes. No opposer thus far has given any policy-based reason to ignore the MOS guideline; therefore, the MOS guideline should not be ignored! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  20:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support Consistent with MOS:JOBTITLES. I'm also always interested in how reliable sources treat these problems. I've participated in a few of these job title RMs, and every time I check RS, and every time they overwhelmingly use lowercase. This case is no exception. Just to take a few random examples (of many): drawn from the previous liberal presidents of South Korea (The Atlantic). be the stars and the new presidents of Syria (BBC). Two former presidents of the Philippines (Washington Post). These aren't cherry-picked - in my searching, I didn't see 'presidents' capitalized once. It seems strange to ignore strong policy-based reasons to move these articles because it's been somehow decided that List of Presidents of the United States is the gatekeeper that must be passed before any other similar titles can be moved. If I'm reading the archives right, the last RM there was a year ago, and ended in 'no consensus'. Subsequent RMs for similar articles have found consensus, and it was in favour of moving to lowercase. What am I missing? Colin M (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • What you are missing is pure obstinacy, I'm afraid. I have never seen more bizarre comments than these oppose !votes. There has not been a single attempt to refute the move request rationale, not a single reference to orthography or a guideline. Never, in any of the move requests. Surtsicna (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:JOBTITLES, and would support List of presidents of the United States as well. CThomas³ (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gotabaya Rajapaksa.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible acting president

If an acting president is appointed for short period of time (like 30 days), can he be added to this list of Presidents? 🔮Plpm2021💬 07:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Did Gotabaya Rajapaksa resign?

Gotabaya Rajapaksa is yet to officially hand over the resignation. He fled the country and appointed Ranil Wickremesinghe as acting president in his absence. So, can we consider 13 July 2022 as the end of Gotabaya Rajapaksa's term? 🔮Plpm2021💬 14:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• William Gopallawa.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Is Anura Kumara Dissanayaka 9th President or 10th

As per the head count Anura Kumara Dissanayaka is 10th on the list. But all the publication claim he is 9th president as Ranil Wickramasinghe acting for Gotabaya Rajapaksha's tenure. So is he should be 9th or 10th? Price Zero|^talk 16:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

AKD is the 10th president overall, however he is the 9th executive president (if you don't count William Gopallawa, the only non-executive president). For the sake of the article we consider AKD as the 10th president and Ranil as the 9th. Not Wlwtn (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)